History

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

Torsten — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:49:45 GMT

Assuming that you are familiar with Western legal procedures, what is your knowledge of and experience with Somali legal procedures?

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

excel — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:25:05 GMT

To some extent this of course applies to Western Democracies as well.

I would say this is ENTIRELY applicable to western democracies as well. And in fact, I would trust a somali legal procedure to uphold my interests as much as I trust any western legal procedure to uphold the same.

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

Torsten — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:59:08 GMT

Here is a country that has been invaded by (probably (at least in some limited role)):

And that won't happen to a Rothbardian Anarchy?

Look at this in another way. Most African kleptocracies, no matter what they've put on paper, are to some extent anarchies. The official government is just a large network of predators. To some extent this of course applies to Western Democracies as well. Just that there you can trust legal procedures to some extent and they generally respect your property rights. And this regime-certainty makes larger investments possible and propable, which ultimately generates more wealth and distributes it more evenly then is the case for African Banana Republics. This on the other hand is the reason why even American Armchair Anarchists prefer the present regime of the USA over places that are more anarchic.

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

Fephisto — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:15:51 GMT

FWIW, my rambling thoughts:

Here is a country that has been invaded by (probably (at least in some limited role)):

-Ethiopia

-Eritrea

-Djibouti

-Kenya

-the U.N.

-the U.S.

-Israel

-Italy

-France

-The African Union

-Etc.

They have a de facto trade embargo (most countries I know of probably would have problems in Customs with ships that came from Somalia).

Did I mention that they're essentially under attack from at least ten international presences? Including the almighty U.S. government after the ICU and its splinter groups have been labeled as terrorist organizations?

Yet, despite this, they have the highest GDP per capita in the region (CIA factbook estimates they're at $600 per capita, whereas Kenya, Djibouti, and Ethiopia are somewhere around $300 last I checked), and continue to post economic growth. (other people in this thread have noted similar claims to this)

Also, I think the time has come to not talk of "Somalia".

Somaliland, Puntland, and southern Somalia are different enough to justify this. As far as I have heard, Somaliland already has a functioning government now. Whereas southern Somalia--and Mogadishu in particular--is where the bulwark of the foreign influence and multi-million (billion? (I just checked, about half a billion dollars)) dollar foreign aid manipulations. And Puntland...I'll be honest, I have no idea wtf is going on there.

In my interpretation, Somalia has been an amazing success. They've endured constant invasion, drought, and trade embargos; and they shrug it off and continue to post economic growth and a higher standard of living than every other one of their neighbours.

What I want to know is, what does anyone know about the ICU? I know they had a major offensive back a few year ago, and since then have remained but decentralized quite a bit. From just the sound of its title it sounds like a kritarchy (kritocracy?) (which, given the polycentric legal system (or was that only in xeer thing only in rural Somaliland?), sounds pretty damn close to ancap).

Rather than play the "No True Scotsman" game, I think it'd be better to just point out that it's being invaded by some of the most powerful governments in the world. Speaking metaphorically, it doesn't matter if ancaps are comparable to the strength of titanium--put it in a nuclear blast and it gets obliterated just like a piece of slate would.

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

Torsten — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:42:05 GMT

The "anarchy" in Somalia is, to my knowledge, hardly comparable to the type envisioned by Rothbard of Friedman. It has no ruling government, although there is one technically in existence which is backed by the UN, and I believe that various tribes and tribal courts prevail as the de facto authority in the "country". Interestingly enough, though, on certain social welfare indicators it is appraised more highly than surrounding countries in Africa.

That sounds a bit like that the Socialism practiced by Stalin wasn't exactly what was envisioned by Marx and Engels.

To put it bluntly Somalia gives us a good idea on how a country in the Afro-Arabic region would look like in the absence of a modern state type of setting. So it's pretty much an outcome of anarchy for those specific kind of people. So please no evasion from taking responsibility for the baby.

What I really wonder about is, how many self-proclaimed market-anarchist have already moved there?

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

Vladimir Ulyanov — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:32:30 GMT

In 1991, the collapse Mohamed Siad Barre’s Democratic Republic of Somalia, and subsequent descent into chaos, saw the emergence of a new commodity currency, a currency worth its paper, ink, and transport costs.

Prior to the collapse of the state, the national currency of Somalia was the Somali shilling (SoSh). The value of the SoSh had been diminished by a reckless monetary policy pursued by the central bank in an attempt to gain seigniorage for the government. Just how reckless this policy was is made clear by the fact that the total quantity of currency in circulation in 1985 was 3.8 billion SoSh, but had increased to more than 155.7 billion SoSh by 1990.

Nevertheless, the collapse of the state saw the collapse of all governmental institutions – including the central bank. Since the collapse of the Somali central bank in 1991, four currencies have gone into circulation in Somalia: the Na’ Shilling, the Somaliland Shilling, the Balweyn I, and the Balweyn II.

The Na’ Shilling was introduced in northern Mogadishu in 1992 and again reissued in 2001. It is a distinct note that does not resemble the pre-1991 note. It has, however, failed to gain widespread acceptance, and instead circulates mainly within a single clan.

The semi-autonomous region of Somaliland has established its own central bank, and issues its own currency, the Somaliland shilling, intended to be circulated exclusively, and act as legal tender within the territory.

In 1997, a south Mogadishu leader issued the Balweyn I note, which is a forgery of the pre -1991 central bank notes. Similarly, a Puntland administration has issued the Balweyn II, another forgery of the pre-1991 SoSh. Both notes are widely accepted forgeries of the pre-1991 SoSh.

The Somali public have, despite the collapse of and, until recently, continued absence of a Somali central bank, not changed their expectation of the currency’s exchange value.

Although the Balweyn notes can be distinguished from each other and the pre-1991 currency, the Somali public have treated them all as the same currency. This has led to the peculiar situation where, rather than competition limiting the amount of inflation and seigniorage in each currency, there has been competition for seigniorage in the same currency. Nevertheless, rather than leading to unbounded inflation, Somalis have limited inflation by refusing to accept anything larger than the pre-1991 denominations. This has placed an upper limit on inflation, and has actually allowed for a relatively stable monetary system to emerge.

It has been estimated that it cost $0.03 to print and import new bank notes into Somalia. When the first Balweyn notes began to circulate in Somalia in 1997, they traded for about $0.12. By late 2001, competition for seigniorage had pushed the value of a 1000 SoSh down to approximately $0.04. This has transformed the SoSh into ‘’commodity money,’’ worth its paper, ink and transport costs. This has meant further printing of the money is no more profitable than any other investment. So after an initial bout of inflation, prices have stabilised, and the currency has, in fact, appreciated slightly, as imports of new reprints has slowed.

Nevertheless, although the currency provides some stability, it is not without its problems. To make purchases of any significant size, large bundles of money are needed. For this reason, it is used alongside US dollars. The Somali people’s use of the currency in absence of a state monopoly, however, is testament to its relative success; as is the fact that it circulates with easy convertibility 50 km within the Ethiopian border; whereas the Ethiopian Birr has little circulation in Somalia.

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

bloomj31 — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:18:23 GMT

The Texas Trigger:
So, while the existence of a state is widely regarded among AnCaps to be highly counterproductive to a good standard of living, it is not the only factor. Almost anybody, including most AnCaps, will tell you that the U.S. far surpasses Somalia in the area of standard of living, which is, at the end of the day, the only standard that really matters. It is either out of ignorance of the AnCap philosophy or through sheer disingenuousness and intellectually dishonesty that one would charge that we should move to Somalia if we don't believe in the existence of the state. For one, Somalia is not an anarchy, at least not in the AnCap sense of the word. But even if it was, as of right now, things are better here in the U.S. in spite, and not because of, a government.

But isn't your quality of life severely negatively effected by living in a society with a social structure that is patently and unendingly immoral to you?

That righteous moral indignation that you must feel everytime you get a jury summons, a tax bill or a police ticket or get "molested" by the TSA every time you travel and God only knows what else must really eat at the very fiber of your being as they say.

How do you tolerate it?

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

Peter Sidor — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:27:02 GMT

Thanks, Jonathan and TheFinest, added more resources to the list. Let me know if there is more!

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

Marko — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:52:15 GMT

It wasn't a gun. It was a rocket launcher without a rocket. In other words it was a tube. They were ducking a piece of tube. And they ran away when children gathered to laugh at the dumasses. They were in no danger whatsover neither from the metal tube pointed at them, nor from the people who gathered.

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

CrazyCoot — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:04:15 GMT

I'm sure a lot of folks have read this before, but just in case.

http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

TheFinest — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:59:11 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

After watching this video, despite the peacefullness of Somaliland I think Mogadishu is a muh more interesting place.

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

Clayton — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:00:39 GMT

As for the "white dumbasses" comment, is that opposed to the black dumbasses in the video who are pointing guns at others?

When in Rome, buddy. Especially if Rome happens to be Mogadishu. These guys were idiots. If they didn't know how to keep their composure when dealing with unusual circumstances without drawing raucous crowds in a foreign land where they stick out like sore thumbs to begin with, they should never have gone in the first place. That's the same principle of safety on which "always treat a firearm as if it's loaded" is based on.

Clayton -

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

The Texas Trigger — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:54:20 GMT

Autolykos:
Another purpose is to implicitly argue that anarcho-capitalists are hypocrites - if they prefer living under no government to living under a government, regardless of the standard of living, then they'd logically move to where there's no government. However, this is typically a strawman argument, as most anarcho-capitalists do take the standard of living into account.

So many great points by Autolykos, however I think his second it the strongest.

On a broader note, most everybody, regardless of any political or religious ideology they may subscribe to, agrees on the desired end: achieving the highest standard of living possible on this Earth. It is the means by which we can achieve this goal that is debated. Ergo, it would make sense for anyone, Ancaps included, to want to live in the country he feels has the highest standard of living. Now, standard of living is a VERY subjective valuation, and it varies from person to person (which is why anarchy would be great - you are free to develop the society you see fit to live in). However, there are some measurements routinely used to gauge standard of living that a great majority of people agree are useful when measuring such a thing as standard of living. These include access to healthcare, access to clean drinking water, availability of new technologies, cost of living, and private property rights.

That being said, even these figures are somewhat subjective, and the methods by which they are calculated are also often debated among professionals of varying kinds. The last measurement I mentioned, the strength of private property rights, can also be perceived as either totally bad or totally good depending on who you talk to. A dedicated communist, for instance, will tell you that private property is a totally bad thing, whereas an AnCap will tell you it is a totally good thing. This illustrates an important lesson: anytime you are presented with a ranked list of standard of living, always look at the study's methods of measurement to make sure they conform to your conception of what the measurement should be measuring. If you take these studies at face value, you could be loosing out on very relevant and valuable information.

Ok, so moving on, it is true that AnCaps believe that the existence of a government is one of the largest, if not the largest, contributing factors to the detriment of a people living within the boundaries of a nation's lands and laws. Thus, AnCaps believe that the existence of the state will, on net, be to a country's detriment when measuring standard of living. However, many other factors contribute to standard of living. These include a given society's access to plentiful and varied resources, a society's available food items which directly influence nutrition quality; a factor integral to the relative productivity of one people over another.

Also effecting standard of living would be the general culture of the people living in the society. If the vast majority of a society holds a strict religious ritual that 5 hour naps be taken every day in the middle of the work day, then that economy will probably suffer for it, regardless of whether or not a state exists. If the people of that society value the nap more than the productivity they have lost because of it, then this is not a problem because they are making that choice and accepting the consequences thereof. This again stresses the importance of anarchy over the state.

In a free society, the majority are free to take naps. You, being an industrious entrepreneur, may prefer to work during those 5 hours to get a leg up over your competitors, or you may not. The only thing the state is capable of doing in this situation is creating an opportunity for your competitors to lobby the government to create a law forcing the naps on everybody so that you loose your competitive advantage and they still get their nap. To add insult to injury, you now also have to pay a fee for this little kick in the nuts; this fee is called taxes. Pretty raw deal, huh?

What is most important to understand about this is that in the framework of a state, society is viewed as a singular entity. This necessarily means that the majority rule will likely be THE rule. Conversely, a free society has no boundaries. You are a citizen of Earth, so to speak, and everyone is viewed as their own sovereign individual. This characteristic is the ingredient that makes it possible for you to look down your nose at the nappers and keep working if you damn well please. In a state, you are a mere cog in the machine, and if on the whole that machine feels you are counterproductive to its desired ends (the nap) then you are a defective part and must be "repaired" (punished or regulated), or if you are really contemptuous to the machine, you must be replaced entirely (death). So you see that each individual is there own micro-economy in a sense. What I mean by that is, in the free society, should the majority choose to nap and the economy of that people is adversely effected because of the nap, it does not necessarily follow that the nap must adversely effect you. On the contrary, you can make it to your advantage by doing as I mentioned and working during your competitors' sleepy time. The existence of a state can only mire this wonderful quality.

You may ask, "how can you, on one hand, say the economy of a people is adversely affected by the nap and, on the other, say there are no boundaries and everyone is their own micro-economy? Wouldn't that mean that there really are defined and separate economies?"

To answer your question: yes and no. Yes, because geography defines economies to some degree for you. The resources available to you from the land you live on, to placement of your landmass relative to other landmasses being separated by bodies of water all play a role in this natural separation between economies. However, I answer no to your question in the sense that in a free society, there are theoretically no legally defined barriers between one economy and another.

However, another reality you must face is that while your society may be free, many others may, and probably will, not be, and you are forced to deal with this reality. In this sense though, the differing nation-states' economies we know of today live in a state of anarchy with each other. If the world were stateless, imagine those relationships being reduced to microscopic levels and in the billions instead of the several hundred we see today.

The other idea that must be understood is that we can never escape the peaceful actions of others that may indirectly adversely effect us. You may be able to work those five hours during which everyone else you know is napping, and it is at this point that you must accept the pros as well as the cons of freedom. Just as your competitors cannot prevent you from working, you cannot prevent your suppliers or your customers from napping. This is what I meant when I said that a culture of nappers will probably be detrimental to a given economy. In this case, it is detrimental to your economy, even if you aren't the one sleeping on the job.

However, technology is making many hindrances like these irrelevant. If your society must nap 5 hours every work day, the internet, the telephone, and the computer are all means by which to reach other customers during that time who may be on the other end of the globe. These technologies have also made the problem of geography a thing of the past for many service industries. Even time itself, while still a valuable and scarce resource, has in many senses become an antiquated issue.

So, while the existence of a state is widely regarded among AnCaps to be highly counterproductive to a good standard of living, it is not the only factor. Almost anybody, including most AnCaps, will tell you that the U.S. far surpasses Somalia in the area of standard of living, which is, at the end of the day, the only standard that really matters. It is either out of ignorance of the AnCap philosophy or through sheer disingenuousness and intellectually dishonesty that one would charge that we should move to Somalia if we don't believe in the existence of the state. For one, Somalia is not an anarchy, at least not in the AnCap sense of the word. But even if it was, as of right now, things are better here in the U.S. in spite, and not because of, a government.

What is important is to look to the future. Sure, right now it's better here in the good ol' US of A, but what are the trends? Right now nly matters right now. Past performance is no indicator of future performance. Sound logic, however, never changes. To quote Mises, "the criterion of truth is that it works even if nobody is prepared to acknowledge it.." So, where are we headed: toward the better or the worst? Where is Somalia headed: toward the better or the worst? I leave that question up to you to answer.

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:48:56 GMT

Here's a short response to a recent Foreign Policy piece by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson on statelessness: Law without the State.

Re: What's the deal with Somalia?

Kelvin Silva — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:18:57 GMT

in regards to the video, at least they are pretty friendly in somalia.