Somalia, a failed state with economic success?

[BigBallinStalin]

Somalia: Failed State, Economic Success?

His conclusion:

Somalia’s Lesson

Somalia’s lesson should not be overstated—it is no libertarian utopia. I certainly don’t plan to move there anytime soon. But Somalia does demonstrate that a reasonable level of law and order can be provided by nonstate customary legal systems and that such systems are capable of providing some basis for economic development. This is particularly true when the alternative is not a limited government but instead a particularly brutal and repressive government such as Somalia had and is likely to have again if a government is reestablished.

Economist George Ayittey often refers to many African governments as “vampire states,” which suck the lifeblood out of their citizens and their economy. He recently wrote that the “rogue African nation-state should be left to the fate it deserves—implosion and state collapse.” Many would react with horror to such a suggestion and say, “If that happened you’d end up with another Somalia!” The lesson we should learn from Somalia is that that’s not so bad—at least when compared to the often ghastly alternatives.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feature ... c-success/

[Qwert]

ha-ha, so if you want to get ekonomical grow, just need to start civil war!!
Maybe you got something here. Unfortunatly in every civil war,some people have huge benefit.

[BigBallinStalin]

It mostly depends on what kind of resources they have. Somalia's "lucky" in the sense that they won't be any big players shaping their governments and its policies (as much as others).

Anyway, this is a promising case study of how some countries can actually improve without a centralized state (there's just multiple municipalities and other realms controlled and somewhat dubiously controlled, with an overall 5% tax on one's income to provide security).

[Baron Von PWN]

I'm realy interested in reading this, unfortunetly this is a busy time of year so I don't have time atm. Thanks for posting this BBS i'll come back to it in a couple weeks.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm realy interested in reading this, unfortunetly this is a busy time of year so I don't have time atm. Thanks for posting this BBS i'll come back to it in a couple weeks.

Please do. It's important that people realize that there may be in some cases a better alternative than relying so heavily on a centralized and powerful state for their own welfare.

If anyone here really cares about why poor people are poor, this is a useful case to be aware of.

[Baron Von PWN]

I'm realy interested in reading this, unfortunetly this is a busy time of year so I don't have time atm. Thanks for posting this BBS i'll come back to it in a couple weeks.

Please do. It's important that people realize that there may be in some cases a better alternative than relying so heavily on a centralized and powerful state for their own welfare.

If anyone here really cares about why poor people are poor, this is a useful case to be aware of.

I jsut gave it a read, after deciding to see how long it was (not that bad) and its certainly interesting. Hard to say what kind of broader conclusions you can reasonably draw though. Is a system of commonly accepted norms preferable to an oppressive state, sure, is it preferable to an effective democracy or even an inefective one? not so clear.

Still a very intresting case study in minimal government.

[BigBallinStalin]

As an alternative to an effective democracy, the case becomes much harder to make since such forms of government have comparatively been able to more for their citizens.

1) But at the expense of whom? The United States' has spawned a highly interventionist nation-state seemingly at the detriment of more and more countries over the decades. Has the US current and past course of action provided the most benefit for the US citizens and for the world?

2) And, in the long-run, how is a Limited Government viable? (Can it successfully maintain a minor size in power?)

3) If not a Limited Government, then why not consider an anarcho-capitalistic government as a suitable replacement?)

[Baron Von PWN]

1) But at the expense of whom? The United States' has spawned a highly interventionist nation-state seemingly at the detriment of more and more countries over the decades. Has the US current and past course of action provided the most benefit for the US citizens and for the world?

I think if you weighed the global costs and benefits of US interventionism, they would currently come out as a net beneift. I come to this conclusion entirely due to the cold war. Had the US not maintained an interventionist stance from the begining, the period of time from 45-89 would look very different and I beleive would have been a worse result for the world.

2) And, in the long-run, how is a Limited Government viable? (Can it successfully maintain a minor size in power?)

Only through the continued will of that nations political culture. Many countries maintained limited governments up until broad changes in political culture. (thoug it could be argued government was constrained by technology)

3) If not a Limited Government, then why not consider an anarcho-capitalistic government as a suitable replacement?)

Why would an anrcho-capitalist system face lower riskes for emergence of stronger government than a limited government.

All that is required for a stronger government is sufficient levels of political will.

[BigBallinStalin]

1) But at the expense of whom? The United States' has spawned a highly interventionist nation-state seemingly at the detriment of more and more countries over the decades. Has the US current and past course of action provided the most benefit for the US citizens and for the world?

I think if you weighed the global costs and benefits of US interventionism, they would currently come out as a net beneift. I come to this conclusion entirely due to the cold war. Had the US not maintained an interventionist stance from the begining, the period of time from 45-89 would look very different and I beleive would have been a worse result for the world.

I'd agree with that, but it's really hard to determine these "what if" scenarios; however, the US definitely took a turn for the US as the Soviet Union fell, and they decided to take it upon themselves to globally dominate/much even more interventionist.

2) And, in the long-run, how is a Limited Government viable? (Can it successfully maintain a minor size in power?)

Only through the continued will of that nations political culture. Many countries maintained limited governments up until broad changes in political culture. (thoug it could be argued government was constrained by technology)

Yeah, now you're thinking. That point on technology (innovation, creativity) is the crucial variable that no one can really figure out at the moment.

3) If not a Limited Government, then why not consider an anarcho-capitalistic government as a suitable replacement?)

Why would an anrcho-capitalist system face lower riskes for emergence of stronger government than a limited government.

All that is required for a stronger government is sufficient levels of political will.

You're assuming that within an anarcho-capitalistic society that a competitive advantage of power is attainable (competitive enough to the point that a government would "spontaneously" form and then the cycle starts again.

No one really knows if states are inevitable, or naturally-forming, or completely unnecessary if given enough thought.

[Baron Von PWN]

1) But at the expense of whom? The United States' has spawned a highly interventionist nation-state seemingly at the detriment of more and more countries over the decades. Has the US current and past course of action provided the most benefit for the US citizens and for the world?

I think if you weighed the global costs and benefits of US interventionism, they would currently come out as a net beneift. I come to this conclusion entirely due to the cold war. Had the US not maintained an interventionist stance from the begining, the period of time from 45-89 would look very different and I beleive would have been a worse result for the world.

I'd agree with that, but it's really hard to determine these "what if" scenarios; however, the US definitely took a turn for the US as the Soviet Union fell, and they decided to take it upon themselves to globally dominate/much even more interventionist.

Oh I definitely agree. if we were to look at exclusively the post cold-war period I would say it has been negative, and does not really show much sign of improving.

You're assuming that within an anarcho-capitalistic society that a competitive advantage of power is attainable (competitive enough to the point that a government would "spontaneously" form and then the cycle starts again.

No one really knows if states are inevitable, or naturally-forming, or completely unnecessary if given enough thought.

I don't see why not. Eventually someone would figure out something very profitable, those profits would lead to power, power would lead to control, bam defacto state. I think a valuable comparison for such a system would be observing organized crime, since they operate outside the law they could be seen to be operating in an anarchical system.

I would argue we have always had some form of a state. Right down to the earliest groupings of humanity there was an alpha male or at least some form of organizing consensus.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're assuming that within an anarcho-capitalistic society that a competitive advantage of power is attainable (competitive enough to the point that a government would "spontaneously" form and then the cycle starts again.

No one really knows if states are inevitable, or naturally-forming, or completely unnecessary if given enough thought.

I don't see why not. Eventually someone would figure out something very profitable, those profits would lead to power, power would lead to control, bam defacto state. I think a valuable comparison for such a system would be observing organized crime, since they operate outside the law they could be seen to be operating in an anarchical system.

I would argue we have always had some form of a state. Right down to the earliest groupings of humanity there was an alpha male or at least some form of organizing consensus.

That's a fundamental problem faced by (and sometimes ignored by) the anarcho-capitalists.

To be clear, this is anarcho-capitalism in a nutshell: There would be no state. Everything would be on the market. So with legal systems and protection agencies in constant competition with one another, they simply assume that market equilibrium for such agencies would reach 10,000 for 350,000,000 Americans (but they admit that they're not sure).

Then the question becomes, given that, can one or a few protection agencies attain and maintain a sustainable competitive advantage in the use of power in order to coerce others and forcibly extract from them their wealth? (i.e. are cartels sustainable in the long-run, and can they lead to the formation of a state in such a highly competitive environment?)

It's like asking: Can Coca-Cola dominate and monopolize its market share, and then be able to sustain it in an anarcho-capitalist society?


In order to answer the above questions, one helps to know: what's the optimal size of government over X amount of people?

If one can understand those questions and answer them well, you'd most likely win a Nobel Peace Prize.