Topic: A study on Somalia (Read 5402 times)

I'm actually doing my thesis on the necessity of government and the viability of an anarcho-capitalist replacement. Historically Anarcho capitalism has worked well, prime examples being the American Old West (ca 1860-1900) and the Icelandic Commonwealth(930-1262), both of which were fairly successful by measurable standards.

More on topic, Somalia is a bad place to live in, obviously. Overall conditions, however, are getting better - Somalia shows improvement at a very good rate compared to it's neighboring countries, and the majority of violence is brought about by puppet governments trying to be set up by foreign governments. There has been significant investment in Somalia by many major corporations (including Dole Fruit, which seems odd to me - what fruit grows well in Somalia, anyone know?). Not only that but Somalia has some of the cheapest and best quality cell phone service in the country. Overall many schools and hospitals are being opened, and trade has greatly expanded since government collapse. The system of law they use (Xeer) is very similar to that used in the Icelandic Commonwealth, which is a fairly good system that kept bloodshed to a minimum. Overall the country is trending toward becoming one of the better, if not one of the best countries in Africa.

That isn't to say that things are good there - they are improving but certainly not good. Things do not make ridiculous improvements overnight, infrastructure takes significant time to build and things are still being disrupted by the damn governments of the world trying to institute a government there. Things are getting better, and considering the starting point Somalia had, this is good progress.

Here some video's by Ryan Faulk about Somalia in the context of anarchy or anarcho-capitalism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qri4lWpMVEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TTOsWym-dI

Looks like gene took my bait


Excellent point...Any reasonable study should be comparing apples to apples.


+1


Stefan Molyneux has a nice little video "Anarchy in Somalia".  He makes the clever point in his introduction that:

a) That's actually not a banality.
b) If you'd initially understood it to be such, maybe we would have been spared your accusatory over-generalizations.

I understand well what the paper says. Your post has essentially reduced the paper into a banality, which it is. And one that fails to provide a compelling case for Anarcho-Capitalism, which is what is being discussed in the thread.

Ok, guess you're going to make me spell it out for you. 


So the point of the article, which you missed, is that a government can be more harmful than no government.

Not read the article yet, but I had heard that piracy in Somalia got going when foreign nations started illegaly fishing in Somali waters and dumping all sorts of waste there, with no Somali state to take official measures against it, who would stop them?

The pirates were fisherman that started acting like vigilante's, now they know the possible rewards of course, they have become fully fledged pirates. I bet the illegal fishing and waste-dumping has slowed down now though...

Somalia's problems are Islam and the culture of violence that evolved there instead of business culture during the government days. Also the foreign armies and the puppet government funded by western countries. But as the report shows, living standards there are now less bad by most measures.

I've read either this document or another like it. From what I understand just from what I've read is that many regions of Somalia are doing far better under a stable clan system than African Nations ruled by a dictator. I'd expect a long and bloody struggle in any country where the philosophical frame work that makes any form of anarchism possible collides with statism. Much like when the ideas of individual liberty clashed with the concept of the divine right of monarchs as rulers in the west.

I read the pdf. It reports some marginal improvements in some metrics. I remain skeptical that this is in any way meaningful or illustrative of a successful case of Anarcho-Capitalism. If people here are interested in furthering Anarcho-Capitalism, it would seem obvious to not present Somalia as a case study. Rather, I would discuss why Anarcho-Capitalism has failed to bring about any real improvements to say... make life bearable for Somalis. That would be far more constructive. The trouble, I suspect, is that the philosophy is fundamentally flawed beyond hope.

I also recommend this podcast on the subject: http://fee.org/media/video/stateless-in-somalia/

The part where he explains how money supply stabilized in Somalia is quite interesting

+1

They always were. That place always was hell on earth.
During the period they didn't have a government and all fighting clans finally realized none of them was powerful enough to become the new government, they've witness few improvements never seen before. Not enough to bring the country even close to current world standards, but a good improvement for Somalia nevertheless. And yes, this period is over, thanks to ONU and other foreign governments...

Just one example. When the government fell, the whole country had one commercial airplane, controlled by the monopolistic state company. At 2005, they had more than 50 if I remember well, and something like 15 companies.
Just read the topic article, or wikipedia:  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

Agreed. However, when someone openly asserts this sort of mindset, they relinquish the expectation of a charitable response. The only appropriate response to such a ridiculous position (ridiculous in the framework of discourse) is ridicule.
[/quote]

I don't believe personal ridicule is ever an appropriate response.  You preach about human solidarity and the worker class uniting to improve their society, yet seek every chance you can find to scorn members of this forum. 

From what I've read, the state of Somalia is highly dependent on where you are talking about.  Everyone seems to focus on Mogadishu, which is indeed a hellhole from all accounts, and ignore other parts of the country.  The interesting thing is that the place where conditions are the worst (Mogadishu) is the only part of the country still controlled by the Somali "government". 

As far as Sultan's statement that tourists are not safe, examine this first hand account: 

"Under the traditions of Somali culture, a guest or visitor or client is called a marti. His patron or host is called an abaan. It is very easy for a person of reasonably good character to find an abaan. Introductions help, of course. Let me note further that in my wanderings around various parts of Awdal, I was accompanied by several Somalis. At times, I was not in sight of any of them. At no time was I accompanied by armed guards. The countryside was peaceful, and the few reminders of warfare were museum-piece tanks and armored cars.

So, it isn't like the sort of war-torn, strife-ridden area that many Western journalists convey the idea that Mogadishu has been for some time. One hardly ever reads of a Western journalist who has traveled as far from Mogadishu as the communities of Baidoa or Kismayo. By coast, Awdal is some 3,000 kilometers away. Somali territory is quite large and diverse."

http://libertariannation.org/a/n030d1.html

Also, I hesitantly refer everyone to the Wikipedia article entitled "The History of Somalia (1991 - 2006)".  Hesitantly, because I don't know how members of this forum view Wikipedia as far as legitimacy.  My own view is that Wikipedia articles are as legitimate as the sources they use, just like any other article.  This one seems to be well cited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991-2006)

Hey Gene, maybe read the article before you comment. 

Agreed. However, when someone openly asserts this sort of mindset, they relinquish the expectation of a charitable response. The only appropriate response to such a ridiculous position (ridiculous in the framework of discourse) is ridicule.

It is polite to take the most charitable explanation and strongest arguments of a position and work from there. Otherwise, you end up in epistemic trouble.

What about SUDAN

I have witnessed a new low. People discussing Somalia as a compelling case for of Anarcho-Capitalism!

I would laugh if it weren't so disgusting.

For what it's worth, I've met Somalis and military people that served there. The consensus is solid. Somalia is a place where people are forced to live in a subhuman state and ally with some violent local gang to survive.


Why am I not surprised?

My understanding has been, and remains, Somalia is an awful hellhole.

It's better in some measurable ways as a sort of a lawless pirate enclave, it was better in other ways as a brutal dictatorship.  Both suck.