Somalia - Success of Anarchy - Page 4

On July 01 2011 14:03 tree.hugger wrote:
This is the thing about libertarian viewpoints. I always think I'm being trolled, but no, libertarians actually are that ridiculous.

On July 01 2011 14:47 brain_ wrote:


Read the article, look at the statistics.





Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.

Good society with limited government > bad society with either anarchy or government, always. But that is the nirvana fallacy, because:

Good society with government > bad society without government
Good society without government > good society with government > bad society without government > bad society with government


People need to be open-minded enough to realize that the things government "produces" - law, justice, etc - are products like anything else. And like any products, the free market is the most efficient and free way to handle them, and brings the lowest prices and highest quality to consumers.

All government has to offer is coercion and force - in no sector can government hope to compete with the free market good-for-good. It relies on its monopoly of force to exclude others from competing. It is ironic that people object to anarchy because "some warlord will just take over" - government is exactly what you get when that happens. So the worst case outcome of anarchy is... government.

On July 01 2011 14:54 tree.hugger wrote:

Somehow, I doubt it. By the way, without checking a map, can you name Somalia's immediate neighbors?

On July 01 2011 15:00 Milkis wrote:


Posting to agree with this.

Then again, it takes a certain types of crazies which is why you have to deal with them all the fucking time ;_;

On July 01 2011 12:59 furymonkey wrote:
If Anarchists thinks Somalia is their ideal state, maybe we could ship them off there?

On July 01 2011 15:21 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay...libertarians can free themselves from government and can control their life and property without them getting in the way at all. But I could barely call myself individualistic if nature is fucking me up.

As someone once said, government is like a cage that oppresses you and violates your freedoms but it also protects your from the sharks outside the cage. Let's find a balance bro.

Too much government=Dictatorship
Too little government=Survival of the fittest.

On July 01 2011 12:26 Jerubaal wrote:
It's not anarchy, it's oligarchy. The telecommunications industry is thriving because they have money and guns. Just like anyone else there is thriving because they have money and guns.

On July 01 2011 15:15 Sanctimonius wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
The worst case outcome of anarchy is a strongarm government that has no method of replacing it or limitations regards to private property and self. Regardless of how you view your own government it doesn't mean that a government is necessarily a bad thing. Personally I feel, and the vast majority of people seem to agree with me, that a government is a necessity to help protect us and our property from outside threats.

Now a limitation in the reach of government, that is something I think can be discussed. But to do away with it altogether? I think there is too much scope for those with bad agendas to basically do what they wish.

On July 01 2011 12:26 Jerubaal wrote:
It's not anarchy, it's oligarchy. The telecommunications industry is thriving because they have money and guns. Just like anyone else there is thriving because they have money and guns.

On July 01 2011 15:27 brain_ wrote:



There is no proof that an absence of government results in state-of-nature-esque survival of the fittest. Chaos and bloodshed that is deemed "anarchy" is always caused by the collapse of government and existing power structures, not the fact that they never existed. "Civilized" people have always been subjugated in one way or another, yet situations in which more freedom exists have consistently resulted in favorable outcomes.

It is entirely possible to continue moving along that sliding scale of personal liberty until you have total freedom, without a lapse in security or "order". And in the process you'd see huge economic and quality of life gains.

On July 01 2011 15:27 brain_ wrote:



There is no proof that an absence of government results in state-of-nature-esque survival of the fittest. Chaos and bloodshed that is deemed "anarchy" is always caused by the collapse of government and existing power structures, not the fact that they never existed. "Civilized" people have always been subjugated in one way or another, yet situations in which more freedom exists have consistently resulted in favorable outcomes.

It is entirely possible to continue moving along that sliding scale of personal liberty until you have total freedom, without a lapse in security or "order". And in the process you'd see huge economic and quality of life gains.

On July 01 2011 15:30 brain_ wrote:

You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?

If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.

On July 01 2011 15:39 Shiragaku wrote:

But I would argue that freedom does not happen until quality of life has improved. I doubt that anyone in Somalia would give a damn about democracy and stability until they can get a consistent supply of food.
To add evidence, people in Egypt, Libya, and Algeria did not bother to start a revolution not because life was getting worse, but rather the quality of life was getting better. This is according to UN statistics, I do not know what that means to you.

And as for Somalia improving, I would argue that it is basically rich people with power finally creating some stability they have not seen in the past. And you really cannot fall any lower so of course you are going to have economy growth, thought it may simply be 2.6 percent.

On July 01 2011 15:47 brain_ wrote:


To start off, I never once advocated "democracy". Democracy is a form of government, and is therefore flawed (especially given the track record of African voters...). I'm not sure your point is cohesive here.

How can you expect to improve quality of life without freedom? Government can't wave a magic wand and make everyone's lives better - in fact, attempts to do so (by foreign governments) have only resulted in disaster (foreign aid).

As for the progress being only by "the rich"... First of all, back it up with statistics. Second of all, how are infant mortality rates, life expectancy, access to healthcare, etc, restricted to the rich?

On July 01 2011 15:40 Sanctimonius wrote:


You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.

A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.

On July 01 2011 15:16 brain_ wrote:



Nice little ad hominem. To be fair I could only name Ethiopia and Kenya, Eritrea slipped my mind (gee I wonder why, such a normal sounding name).

...