23 votes

How Libertarians can beat the "Somalian Government" argument.

With Justice. What Libertarians are ultimately proposing is not Somalian government; it's justice.

We've all heard it before; some Big Government Nanny State Satan Claus attacking Libertarians, saying 'small government fails', and if you have any doubt 'just look at Somalia', as if that's what a Libertarian is proposing.

We as Libertarians should look at this argument as an opportunity to teach people about liberty and what a Libertarian is. We can teach them why Somalia isn't what we're proposing; it's what THEY'RE proposing.

We're proposing a government that meets injustice with force, which is the only legitimate purpose of government, and justice comes from defending peoples liberty.

The same problems faced in Somalia are the same problems born from big government; a lack of justice, and the same people who destroy a country with big government are the same people who spread misery and death in Somalia; those willing to use force to take what they covet.

A Libertarian isn't "anti-government". We're pro-liberty, pro justice, and we know where justice is born; defending liberty from those who'd take it with force. It's not Libertarians that destroy Somalia, it's a lack of justice; it's a lack of liberty, it's one warlord after another promising people the opposite of justice; slaves, plunder, and dominion.

What you find in Somalia are the same kind of people who populate the Nanny state crowd, covetous people stealing from one another, and that's why our country looks more and more like Somalia every day; we have no justice.

The problems in Somalia ARE NOT born from liberty, they're born from the same kind of people who beg a politician to answer their unjust prayers, people who oppose liberty.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It would be an even better

It would be an even better argument for anarchists. When there was no state in Somalia whatsoever, things were much more organized and ran much more smoothly relative to its completely impoverished state. Google Kevin Carson on Somalia. His argument destroys any shallow, intllectually dishonest conflation with anarchism and Somalia.

Somlia is a prime example of big government gone wrong ...

... not small government or no government.

The key points of Somalia:

- Somalia is not a no government zone where people came to a philosophical conclusion that private parties do better than government. Rather, it is simply a failed government.

- The former Somali dictator was stealing about 90% of all the government revenues (some of which came from American taxpayers).

- The Somali government fell, and no other government replaced it.

- Since that time, the people of Somalia have done better by most measures than the people of the surrounding countries.

- Also since that time, the US government and other assorted terrorist states have been funneling money and weapons into Somalia to support one gang against another. It is a proxy war by governments, not a "libertarian state" in any sense.

- These various groups have been trying to RE-ESTABLISH an all-powerful government, not a limited government (of course, THEY want to be the ones in control of that big government).

- The Somali pirates started out as fishermen who were defending their territory. European governments, with their socialized medicine, started dumping toxic medical waste off the shore of Somalia because there was no government. Somali fishermen took to putting guns on their boats to drive away those who were dumping toxic waste. Eventually, some of those turned into pirates who raided boats for ransom. It was the European governments who set those wheels in motion.

- Above all, remember with all the government-backed warlords fighting to re-establish a government, the people themselves have done better than their neighbors during this time of no central government.

A couple of articles:

http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/06/30/anarchy-in-somalia/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/somalia-saladdays.html

You already commented along

You already commented along the lines I was going to. Every time some statist brings up Somalia I point out that the warlords _are_ government. That these are groups fighting each other to establish a government. Somalia while having some stateless traditions is not stateless, it is the victim of the institution of the state, a victim of competing factions working to impose a state.

Why hasn't a "free market

Why hasn't a "free market self defense agency" sprung forth to install the "natural order " of anarchy? Where is this power of market in self defense? What makes you think that removing government in the us wouldn't devolve into similar factionalism just like Europe did with the fall of the Roman Empire?

Ventura 2012

Causation fallacy.

Here's the deal. States create chaos. Chaos becomes so out of control that the state rulers can no longer maintain control. Anarchy ensues. People then say that because they see anarchy and chaos together every time a state has failed, that therfore anarchy must cause chaos.

Never mind that stability always returns before a new state does when people get tired of fighting. Never mind that people declaring themselves and their friends the rulers of a territory doesn't ever stop others from fighting. Never mind that the very things a state does (theft and coercion) are the most surefire ways around to evoke a violent response from people. Nope, it's not the state, it's anarchy, because Somalia is in anarchy, Somalia has chaos, and correlation and causation are exactly the same thing.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2011/12/correlation-causation-infog...

SOCIALISM = FORCED sharing

"SOCIALISM = FORCED sharing" would be a nice bumper sticker

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however,the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” ~Mark Twain

It's all about the NAP

A libertarian is someone who believes in the non-aggression principle.

An anarchist is someone who understands it.

An agorist is someone who practices it.

http://mikezentz.com/agorism/

I your definitions of

I think your definitions of anarchist and libertarian should be switched.

Ventura 2012

The real question is: would

The real question is: would Somalia be better off stateless or with the government it currently has?

The point isn't that

The point isn't that anarchism is better than some forms of government. The idea is that some governments are better than anarchy.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

miket23's picture

If the absurdity comparing a

If the absurdity comparing a country that doesn't have our natural resources, geographical advantages, capital markets, infrastructure, institutions, wealth, etc doesn't do the trick, then simply tell them to google: "Somalia better off stateless"

Read and learn

http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Well

The conflict in Somalia is between warlords. It is also a power grab - the antithesis of Libertarianism.

There is so much wrong with

There is so much wrong with the Somalia argument. First of all, Somalia collapsed after it tried heavy socialism. It went on for years and got worse and worse. It wasn't until the state became anarchic that things actually turned around. Yes, everything got better once they went toward anarchy.

Somalia has been over-run by warlords who are funded and armed by the Western governments and banks.

If you understand the situation, this is actually a win for the anarchy argument. Africa as a whole has been war-torn for centuries and subject to invasion and confiscation. There is no way to compare any normal scenario of libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism to somalia because of this fact.

"If you understand the situation." LOL That's the problem.

100% of the people who say "Somalia is your libertarian paradise" do NOT understand the situation.

Good explanation though you nailed it concisely.

Somalia is not an example of

Somalia is not an example of a libertarian state. It is an example of an anarchist state.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

It's not even an anarchist

It's not even an anarchist state. It's just pure despotism.

Pure Despotism

"It's not even an anarchist state. It's just pure despotism."

If you break down an Anarchist and make him explain where it is he gets his justice from, you'll find an explanation that sounds a lot like what he claims to hate, government, and it will be free market despotism.

Anarchists aren't Libertarians. Anarchists can't win the Somalian Government argument. Sorry.

A Libertarian can't offer slaves, plunder, and dominion, but a despot can. What we offer is justice.

What do you offer?

What we offer is justice.

What you offer is putting people that you approve of, in positions of rulership over the rest of us.

Anarchists believe in rules; they don't believe in rulers.

When you have rulers, you have chaos. This is what you're advocating.

The rule that anarchists believe in is called the non-aggression principle.

A state ruled by laws written by elected representatives

Nobody cares about your non-aggression principle, they covet, and choose violence to take what they unjustly want. The question is, will you serve justice? People choose to take liberty with force, and in a free market of violence, what people "buy" will be the same thing they vote for, slaves plunder and dominion.

Anarchists are Judas Goats, liars, and wannabe despots trying to spread chaos. They want to unleash mans covetous nature in a world without justice. What they get is Somalian government, a thousand little warlords asking what it is people want.

A Libertarian offers Justice, nothing else, which is the only legitimate purpose of government force, and if you wanna be a little despot in a free market of violence, justice will be served.

elected representatives

You want "a state ruled by laws written by elected representatives".

You also said that people covet and want to take liberty with force.

If the above is true, then the covetous people will elect representatives to write laws which legalize plunder.

How does a limited republic with the rule of law and elected representatives solve your problem if the rulers do what the people want -- which is to take things by force?

So I get no representation in Anarchy? Warlord of the flies?

"You also said that people covet and want to take liberty with force."

ATM people want plunder and slaves more than liberty. I've made it very clear, and said that both my Libertarian Government and an Anarchists Chaos fail for the same reason; people get what they deserve. Until people come to grips with their nature, covetous people will ALWAYS get what justly coming to them; Chaos and enslavement.

There's a VERY good reason I can't stand Anarchists; they oppose everything a Libertarian represents, everything that works, and all they want to do is destroy. They can't tell you what they want, because they want to live in Anarchist Lala Land imagining themselves as a Godless Jesus here to save all the stupid sheep and retards.

"If the above is true, then the covetous people will elect representatives to write laws which legalize plunder. "

At least they'll need to try and operate in the light of day and win the debate in a representative government. I love watching looters argue that they're serving justice. Now we can see them for what they are. An Anarchist doesn't want the debate to even happen. What they want is a free market of violence lead by a self worshiper from the shadows.

"How does a limited republic with the rule of law and elected representatives solve your problem if the rulers do what the people want -- which is to take things by force?"

It won't until people overcome their nature and want justice more than plunder and slaves, and that's why I sound like such a broken record sometimes. Justice begins with Liberty, and injustice begins with mans covetous nature.

Anarchists

Why do you say that anarchists are Judas goats and liars. Do you really believe that they are intentionally trying to deceive?

Why not just say that they are misguided and leave it at that?

Because they misguid and lie to serve their destructive agenda

"Do you really believe that they are intentionally trying to deceive?"

Yes. Anarchists want to destroy, and know exactly what they're doing. They just need a crowd to hide in while they do it.

"Why not just say that they are misguided and leave it at that?"

Because a Judas Goat isn't stupid or misguided; they INTENTIONALLY misguide people because they want to destroy something.

I find Anarchists to be highly intelligent, and won't let em use that as an excuse, especially after listening to them run people down, calling them sheep and retards. Anarchists have talked themselves into THAT corner, not me.

I should thank the Anarchists for reminding me though...

I AM just a sheep compared to God, but not compared to an Anarchist. Compared to God I'm just mutton walking. I'm nearly blind, deaf, and dumb, but he has given me a functioning mind, along with eyes, ears, and a voice, so I'll give it all back to him.

Actually, it's governed by a form of feudalism...

...where the feudal lords are the warlords we keep hearing about on the news. Not exactly anarchy, though anarchy would be preferable.

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

Anarchy doesn' exist, sorry. It's a transitional state.

Anarchy IS Warlord Vs Warlord offering people what they unjustly want in a free market of violence. Eventually the sickest self worshiper with the biggest goon squad wins and declares himself a feudal lord.

This is a fact of history.

This is a fact of history. Its amazing how the anarchists have been reduced to supportin feudalism and even monarchism over a republic.

Ventura 2012

It is an example

of a 3rd world country

_________________________________

Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

Libertarians ARE anti-government

If you are not anti-government, you are not a libertarian. also, Bob Murphy has already demolished the Somalia argument, so I see no need to re-hash it here.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Wrong. Go start the Anarchist party and see how that goes.

"If you are not anti-government, you are not a libertarian."

If you're anti-Government, you're an Anarchist, and Anarchists aren't Libertarians. Libertarians want a government that serves justice. The only legitimate purpose of government force is to defend liberty, and I'll be happy to pay for it because unlike a naive Anarchist, I know that chaos doesn't produce liberty.

Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty because they won't defend it (serve justice), and don't know what it is that threatens our liberty (mans covetous nature).