Quantcast

Somalia, Libertarian Utopia

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
I just ran across this, and it is perhaps the greatest thing I've ever read

It is from the Ludwing von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank.

http://www.mises.org/story/2066

Somalia is in the news again. Rival gangs are shooting each other, and why? The reason is always the same: the prospect that the weak-to-invisible transitional government in Mogadishu will become a real government with actual power.

The media invariably describe this prospect as a "hope." But it's a strange hope that is accompanied by violence and dread throughout the country. Somalia has done very well for itself in the 15 years since its government was eliminated. The future of peace and prosperity there depends in part on keeping one from forming.

As even the CIA factbook admits:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

To understand more about the country without a government, turn to The Law of the Somalis, written by Michael van Notten (1933-2002) and edited by Spencer Heath MacCallum, sheds light on the little known Somali law, culture and economic situation. Somalia is often cited as an example of a stateless society where chaos is the "rule" and warlords are aplenty.

The BBC's country profile of Somalia sums up this view as widely publicized by the mainstream media: "Somalia has been without an effective central government since President Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991. Fighting between rival warlords and an inability to deal with famine and disease led to the deaths of up to one million people."

The first sentence is indeed true: when the president was driven out by opposing clans in 1991, the government disintegrated. The second sentence, however, depicts Somalia as a lawless country in disorder. As for disorder, Van Notten quotes authorities to the effect that Somalia's telecommunications are the best in Africa, its herding economy is stronger than that of either of its neighbors, Kenya or Ethiopia, and that since the demise of the central government, the Somali shilling has become far more stable in world currency markets, while exports have quintupled.

(stuff about Somalian family structure)

Van Notten contends that the argument that a central government is a prerequisite for making treaties with foreign government agencies is flawed because the Somalis have long dealt with foreign governments and their agencies on a clan-by-clan basis. A common ministry of foreign affairs would pose a grave danger because it would undermine the customary law. He suggests that clans sharing a common interest could appoint a private company as their common agent. Van Notten and MacCallum further dispute that a central government is needed to provide "public" services. They propose the establishment of freeports, land-leasing, and commercial insurance companies. Certain sectors such as telecommunications have been thriving in Somalia's free market and government regulation could only hinder their growth.

Questions arise as to rampageous warlords when discussing a country without a central government. Van Notten explains that warlords exist because of the efforts to form a central government, not because of its absence:

"A democratic government has every power to exert dominion over people. To fend off the possibility of being dominated, each clan tries to capture the power of that government before it can become a threat. Those clans that didn't share in the spoils of political power would realize their chances of becoming part of the ruling alliance were nil. Therefore, they would rebel and try to secede. That would prompt the ruling clans to use every means to suppress these centrifugal forces… in the end all clans would fight with one another." (van Notten, 136; 2005)

He thus asserts that efforts by the United Nations are not only futile, but also harmful to the Somalis.

Van Notten calls for documentation of clan law systems to facilitate doing business with foreigners, especially, on a nationwide scale. He argues that by compiling all the major jurisprudence under Somali law, the customary law will more readily evolve into a coherent body of common law. But if each clan is only bound by its own rules and custom, and if the Somalis so far never felt the need for the "merger of clan law systems," why would compiling rules of all different clans be necessary? Moreover, it is unclear how such a task can effectively be undertaken when the customary law evolves constantly, and clans have a nomadic character.

The book does not contain information regarding the Somali presidential election in 2004, which took place in Kenya. Efforts to construct a formal government continue but they appear to be in vain, inspiring hope in UN bureaucrats and the news media, but only fear and loathing in Mogadishu and the rest of the country.
That's right, they said that mass starvation shouldn't be stopped because telecommunications companies are thriving. The tags on the story are wonderful, they include "totalgoddamnednonsense" and "ronpaulsvisionforamerica".
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
ummm...

i do hope some things have changed since this first broke almost 3 yrs ago
 

skatetokil

Turbo Monkey
Jan 2, 2005
2,383
-1
DC/Bluemont VA
The mises people are all kinds of crazy (and I know some of them personally), but I don't really think you can decide for or against the position without going to Somalia and talking to people. I certainly haven't been, but as a student of development and someone who has flirted with anarchism, I would throw a couple of things out.

If you look at violence throughout the history of the world, governments with flags and armies have been far more destructive than all the petty criminals, gangs and militias combined. The struggle for political control over neighboring populations is the root cause of this violence, whether we're talking about the classic colonial experience or 20th century history. Empires and nation states are constructed by killing all the people who try to claim autonomy. These struggles are still ongoing in many parts of the world (see: Georgia, Congo, Spain, China, Russia, Sudan etc etc) with tremendous human costs.

Why do we believe that national boundaries are sacred and that the current political status quo must be protected (other than our own place in that order)? What's your argument against local political autonomy? Small scale political organizations are susceptible to the same issues as state government, they may be competent or incompetent, cash strapped or well financed, democratic or authoritarian. What evidence is there that bigger is automatically better? Why do you believe that a government that is further removed from the people it governs can do a better job?
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
Why do we believe that national boundaries are sacred and that the current political status quo must be protected (other than our own place in that order)? What's your argument against local political autonomy? Small scale political organizations are susceptible to the same issues as state government, they may be competent or incompetent, cash strapped or well financed, democratic or authoritarian. What evidence is there that bigger is automatically better? Why do you believe that a government that is further removed from the people it governs can do a better job?
I'm an anarcho-socialist, so I like decentralized power structures. However I am strongly opposed to authoritarian thug rule, and unfettered capitalism.

Look at every major U.S. city at the end of the 19th century, and then take a look at present day Somalia, all of which being notably "unfit for human habitation".
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
If you look at violence throughout the history of the world, governments with flags and armies have been far more destructive than all the petty criminals, gangs and militias combined. The struggle for political control over neighboring populations is the root cause of this violence, whether we're talking about the classic colonial experience or 20th century history. Empires and nation states are constructed by killing all the people who try to claim autonomy. These struggles are still ongoing in many parts of the world (see: Georgia, Congo, Spain, China, Russia, Sudan etc etc) with tremendous human costs.
You can have a strong central government without being imperialist, which is where a lot of the problems that you address come from. Having a strong central government and a strong military makes imperialism easier, but the strength of a government is stability.

Why do we believe that national boundaries are sacred and that the current political status quo must be protected (other than our own place in that order)? What's your argument against local political autonomy? Small scale political organizations are susceptible to the same issues as state government, they may be competent or incompetent, cash strapped or well financed, democratic or authoritarian. What evidence is there that bigger is automatically better? Why do you believe that a government that is further removed from the people it governs can do a better job?
Small-scale political autonomy consistently ends up in tribal warfare. A small-scale political organization cannot pull something like the NHS off, because there are certain things that only a larger government can do. If you want proof that bigger is better, look at the world around you. Bigger governments historically have more power than small, tribal governments, because there is more labor and capital available to do things and to dominate.

I think you are looking at the problems of imperialism, and attributing it to larger governments, since larger governments have that ability. However, a larger government can also use those resources to better its people and the world.
 

skatetokil

Turbo Monkey
Jan 2, 2005
2,383
-1
DC/Bluemont VA
However, a larger government can also use those resources to better its people and the world.
I'm not talking about potential, I'm talking about practice. In practice, large powerful governments erode the right of their citizens and unleash unspeakable violence on their neighbors. In practice, the casualties associated with tribal warfare don't even come close to those caused by industrialized weapon states (like our own unfortunately).
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
I'm not talking about potential, I'm talking about practice. In practice, large powerful governments erode the right of their citizens and unleash unspeakable violence on their neighbors. In practice, the casualties associated with tribal warfare don't even come close to those caused by industrialized weapon states (like our own unfortunately).
Take a look at Norway, for example. It has a relatively large government, a lot of social services, some state ownership, etc., yet it isn't imperialist or abusive.

I don't think you can really compare casualty numbers because the number of people living under large governments is exponentially larger than those living under tribal systems.
 

black noise

Turbo Monkey
Dec 31, 2004
1,032
0
Santa Cruz
Take a look at Norway, for example. It has a relatively large government, a lot of social services, some state ownership, etc., yet it isn't imperialist or abusive.

I don't think you can really compare casualty numbers because the number of people living under large governments is exponentially larger than those living under tribal systems.
I think Norway is an exception to the rule. Every other European government has had its share of imperialism and abuse of power, be it as part of the axis, Soviet Russia, or just plain tyrannical.

And I think the point of the casualty count was that lack of government is not usually the cause of strife throughout history. Be it Spain in 1936, Soviet Russia, Mao's China, American expansion westward or our imperialism south of the border, or apparently Somalia, the most violence and deaths come directly from a government establishing its power. The crimes that come as a result of no governmental authority pale in comparison to the crimes that would come with a government.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
I think Norway is an exception to the rule. Every other European government has had its share of imperialism and abuse of power, be it as part of the axis, Soviet Russia, or just plain tyrannical.
It proves that it is possible to have a social democratic government without it taking away rights or being tyrannical. It is an anomaly of history, but so was the United States when it was founded.

And I think the point of the casualty count was that lack of government is not usually the cause of strife throughout history. Be it Spain in 1936, Soviet Russia, Mao's China, American expansion westward or our imperialism south of the border, or apparently Somalia, the most violence and deaths come directly from a government establishing its power. The crimes that come as a result of no governmental authority pale in comparison to the crimes that would come with a government.
No doubt, imperialism has killed way more people than tribal warfare. In the DRC and Somalia, a lot of deaths come from a lack of a central government to help control disease, build infrastructure, etc. However, especially in the case of the DRC, it was so wracked by imperialism that they have much bigger problems than a lack of a real central government.

Government isn't the problem, it is a tool to reach ends. It is similar to a hammer, it can be used to bludgeon people to death or it can build hospitals. Just because the hammer has killed a lot of people doesn't mean that it shouldn't be wielded to use its benefits.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
I'd like to see someone make an argument for imperialism that has no built in racism or superiority complex tbh.
Well, the realist argument is that since people are inherently violent, brutish, and aggressive, the governments that contain them contain those features. The goal of states is to acquire power so its survival isn't threatened by other states. Therefore, for a state to survive, it has to be imperialistic so it can gain power.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Another libertarian think tank, the Independent Institute, thinks Somalia is great

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880

Say “Somalia” to most Americans and they will likely have visions of civil war and chaos. While accurate in the early 1990s, these visions have not been the actual situation in Somalia for most of the last decade. Unfortunately, because of yet another international attempt to install a Somali government, these visions are again becoming increasingly accurate.

Somalia has been without a national government since 1991, when Dictator Siad Barre was ousted from power. Somalia plunged into a civil war as rival factions attempted to establish a new government. Interventions by the U.S. and U.N. tended to unite the Somalis against the outsiders, resulting in the famous “Black Hawk Down” episode, and ultimately, the withdrawal of U.S. and U.N. forces.

Once the U.N. withdrew, a relative peace developed in Somalia. Crime and violence persisted, but not at the levels seen during the civil war. Various clan elders, warlords, and Islamic courts had power, but none were strong enough to impose themselves as the new government, and most of the fighting stopped.

Once this relative peace was achieved, the Somalis began to order their affairs and adapt institutions to provide governance, even though they lacked a government. Most of the order was provided by Somalia’s customary legal code, the Xeer, which was interpreted by clan elders and informally enforced, mainly through ostracism. Islamic courts existed, but most had little influence. Islamic law was reserved mostly for matters of divorce and inheritance, while the common law covered everything else.

Although Somalia is still poor, the ordered anarchy that has existed since the mid–1990s has actually translated into improved living standards. In conducting research for a new study comparing Somalia’s economy relative to 42 other African countries, my coauthors and I examined 13 different measures, including life expectancy, immunization and disease rates, access to various telecommunications, and access to water/sanitation.

In 2005, Somalia ranked in the top 50 percent in six of our 13 measures, and ranked near the bottom in only three: infant mortality, immunization rates, and access to improved water sources.
This compares favorably with circumstances in 1990, when Somalia last had a government and was ranked in the bottom 50 percent for all seven of the measures for which we had that year’s data: death rate, infant mortality, life expectancy, main telephone lines, tuberculosis, and immunization for measles and DTP. Furthermore, we have found that during the last years of Somalia’s government, 1985 to 1990, their performance was deteriorating compared to other African nations as their relative ranking fell in five of these measures. Since their government’s collapse, Somalia has seen its relative ranking improve in four of these measures and deteriorate in only one: infant mortality.

Perhaps most impressive is Somalia’s change in life expectancy. During the last five years of government rule, life expectancy fell by two years but since state collapse, it actually has increased by five years. Only three African countries, Guinea, Gambia, and Rwanda, can claim a bigger improvement. Telecommunications is another major area of success. With a variety of companies operating without burdensome government regulation, Somalia ranks high among African countries in the number of phone lines, mobile phone usage, and access to the Internet. According to The Economist, a mobile phone call in Somalia is “generally cheaper and clearer than a call from anywhere else in Africa.”

In fact, the ordered anarchy in Somalia attracted multinational corporations to the country. Coca–Cola, Dole, DHL, and affiliates of General Motors and British Airways, among others, began making investments in Somalia. Unfortunately, recent international efforts at establishing a new government in Somalia are likely to ruin what little economic progress the country has made.

In 2004, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) was created in exile with U.N. backing. In February 2006 it entered Somalia, and so far, controls only the town of Baidoa.

The Somalis again have united against this attempt by outsiders to force a government on them. Unfortunately, the result has been an increase in the power of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), who, since June, has gained control over much of southern Somalia, including the former capital, Mogadishu. An estimated 600 militias have joined the UIC since the TFG moved into Baidoa in February.

Every government of Somalia has exploited the country’s population. International meddling created the TFG and, unintentionally, a more powerful UIC. If either group were to become a true government, the population likely will once again become oppressed. In the meantime, the two groups appear headed back into civil war, which will likely result in the kind of chaos the country has not experienced since 1995.

Prime Minister Gedi of the TFG recently said, “It is totally misguided not to accept the government. The alternative is chaos.” Unfortunately, he’s got it exactly backwards. It is, in fact, the attempts to impose a government on Somalia that create chaos.
HMMM during all out war life expectancy drops, and when it goes back to tribal warfare, pillaging, and looting, the death toll is slightly less.

The solution? Move all libertarians to Somalia.
 

skatetokil

Turbo Monkey
Jan 2, 2005
2,383
-1
DC/Bluemont VA
From my perspective as a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, my guess is that all the recent news about piracy is part of a PR campaign to justify the imposition of a new government in the next 6 months or so. They're a minor nuisance in the grand scheme of things, and could easily be dealt by regional governments or through much less costly policing, prevention and deterrence.

Like terrorism however, I expect this piracy stuff is going to be used to launch a much more expansive intervention in Somalia and the wider region. This intervention will entail significant human suffering, loss of life, and expenditure by our government, but we won't talk about that because it would be unpatriotic. Besides, they were living under ANARCHY :shudder: before, how could it possibly be worse now that the benevolent foreign army is occupying their land, impregnating their daughters and turning their country into the newest front in the war on terror?

Soon Somalia will be drawing malcontents from throughout Africa who weren't quite motivated enough to cross the gulf to blow themselves but who can now hop a bus and be in Mogadishu in 48 hours to take pot shots our troops.

I hope I'm wrong. . .
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Sweden and Finland are making significant strides towards deregulation and neoliberalism, so they aren't really good examples.
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
Take a look at Norway, for example. It has a relatively large government, a lot of social services, some state ownership, etc., yet it isn't imperialist or abusive.

I don't think you can really compare casualty numbers because the number of people living under large governments is exponentially larger than those living under tribal systems.
Norway has F-16's and soldiers in Afghanistan, and probably supports the EU/US conquest for world domination (maybe not as much as the Swedish gvmnt, but to a great extent non the less).

I'm with Skatetokil, smaller countries are better as their citizens are more in control; the pyramid of power is closer to them.