Somalia: Libertarian Paradise or Hell on Earth?

[The Last Conformist]

No, no, read my posts if that's what you think.

If what is what I think?

 

[insurgent]

If what is what I think?

This:

It's the post-civil war situation that's "libertarian" in the sense there's no (central) gov't.

That's why it was in the quote in the 59th post.

The post I was referring to was this:

There are many small entities that practically function as local totalitarian governments. They control an area, force the inhabitants to accept their "protection". They hold a monopoly of force. They are therefore in effect small states.

The fact is that the Somali government under Barre was oppressive, strong, and too powerful. The more unstable a country is, the easier it is to overthrow the government. The more powerful the government is, the more desirable its powers are - that is to say that more people will want to grab hold of the government and its powers since it is so potent a means to the usurper's end. Furthermore, more people will object to the government and the chance of insurrection will increase.
The connection between overly strong government and anarchy and civil war is not that hard to see.

So, no, there is no central government, but there is government.

And finally:

I can buy "local governments", but totalitarian? They're, from all I've heard, largely leaving the economy alone, and they're not interfering with traditional lifestyles (except tangentially by killing off bread-winners and the like).

I don't know about you, but I call random killings totalitarian. Killing off of bread-winners is not exactly a trait of a democracy, is it now? Do you think any Somali in the domain of a warlord can speak up politically, can claim what he wants? Do you think that the warlords obey any principle of equal rights? You don't, do you?

They're totalitarian alright.

I've got to go, I neither can nor will continue this discussion any longer. I've got to go, and this kind of unconstructive hair-splitting is not worth my time and effort.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Insurgent youre equating warlordism with legitimate government. Armed banditry isnt a form of government. Its what fills the void when there isnt a government.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The quote marks surrounding the word libertarian in that post were supposed to indicate that it wasn't I who labeled it as libertarian. DP did, in the OP.

In other words, yes, I believe that the post-civil war situation has been described as libertarianism. It does not follow that I agree with that assassment - indeed, my posts in this thread should make clear I do not.

I don't know about you, but I call random killings totalitarian.

I don't. I feel it kills off any utility the term may have beyond as an invective.

Killing off of bread-winners is not exactly a trait of a democracy, is it now? Do you think any Somali in the domain of a warlord can speak up politically, can claim what he wants? Do you think that the warlords obey any principle of equal rights? You don't, do you?

I don't. But none of that makes them totalitarian.

As for hair-splitting, well, it may be annoying, but no more so than trying to carry on a debate where the others not merely use definitions of words that differ from mine, but moreover ones I'm not aware of.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@newfangle

You mentioned paying taxes in support of the military, police and justice system would be an intermediary step. How exactly would the transition from tax to no-tax take place and what would be left behind? Is it something remotely symilar to the Communist utopia of a leaderless future?

 

[Mise]

@newfangle

You mentioned paying taxes in support of the military, police and justice system would be an intermediary step. How exactly would the transition from tax to no-tax take place and what would be left behind? Is it something remotely symilar to the Communist utopia of a leaderless future?

Strictly speaking, the only function of the government required in a Libertarian state is to uphold the law, the law being an embodiment of the rights of liberty, property and security. There is a problem with taxes - they occur as a percentage of one's income. This means that a rich person pays more for his liberty, property and security rights than a poor person, so either his rights are worth more than a poor person, or he demands more in return for his higher tax money. The solution to this problem could be:
- Charge a flat rate for upholding the law per year (rather than a percentage of one's income),
- Charge a commission on all legally binding contracts made to allow each party to bring a dispute to the court if and when this becomes necessary (this is basically a sales tax), or
- Charge a flat rate for bringing a dispute to court, making courts of law another company (albeit, a highly regulated one).

If there is anything I have misunderstood about such a transition, feel free to correct me someone. I'd imagine that far from being a utopic, romantic transition, it would be rather more clinical and pragmatic.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

- Charge a flat rate for bringing a dispute to court, making courts of law another company (albeit, a highly regulated one).

Privately owned courts of law?

 

[Immortal]

COurt is for the enforcement of contracts between individuals and prosecution those who encroach upon the liberties of others. Most libs I've met advocate a style of work-camp for those found guilty.

Court would not be a private company and the state would be funded by user fees of their programs.

 

[Mise]

Most libs I've met advocate a style of work-camp for those found guilty.

Sounds like slave labour to me! Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the term "work-camp"...

 

[Immortal]

call it what you will, it would be A) economical to the state B) A helluva harsh punishment C) Free source of labour for the state.

 

[Mise]

If the state owns the courts, and the state decides the laws, and the state benefits from exacting a punishment, what's to stop the state exacting a punishment to people who's crime is not deserving of the punishment?

I think the problem here is that the state has something to gain from enforcing the law, other than merely performing its duty, and this represents a conflict of interests.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I would have thought libertarians would object to forced labour on the grounds that it's distorting the free labour market?

 

[Immortal]

Judges are still supposed to be impartial individuals Mise, sentencing still have to be logical and fair or nobody will stand for it.

I dont see many Canadian court cases these days where people claim the punishment is too harsh (except the victims and that lady with the sandwich board on her), but instead to light.

 

[Mise]

That's the problem though, how can they be impartial in a case where they would benefit from finding the defendant guilty?

 

[Immortal]

I would have thought libertarians would object to forced labour on the grounds that it's distorting the free labour market?

These are the people I have talked to in real life, normal people, not philosophers. Their views on issues may not always fall in perfect synch with philosophies just as they dont with all other philosophies.

BTW I dont consider myself a libertarian, I consider myself a classical liberal.

 

[Immortal]

That's the problem though, how can they be impartial in a case where they would benefit from finding the defendant guilty?

Its called a jury. And a supreme court.

They are paying their restitution to the victim through loss of liberty.

 

[Akka]

I see that point, but at no point was Somalia a libertarian country - the warlords were always there, armies have fought over the land ever since independence, Somalia is an example of how dangerous government can be.

Well, what others say is rather that Somalia is an example of how dangerous a LACK of government can be.
You see local warlords as small governments with too much power, and say "as such, government is bad as soon as they have lots of power".
Another point of view is rather that local warlords are individuals who are exercing force onto others because they can't be kept in check by a central governement, as it's too weak to do anything. So in this view, as such, weak governments are bad because that situation is what they lead to.

And the link with Somalia follows this reasoning : as Libertarians believe that there should be no check nor control about the power that someone can wield, then in a libertarian country, soon there will be people with more means and more power than the (very weak) government, as they will be able to simply ignore the government's orders, and make their own law => anarchy.