Jhessail said:
We're really going in circles here because you seem to be incapable of admitting facts.
What facts, exactly, am I "incapable" of admitting? It seems to me that you're the one having trouble admitting that Somalia's issues have nothing to do with libertarianism. Unless of course you think that prior to 1991 there were a huge number of Somalis that were "acolytes" of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Frederic Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, F. A. Hayek, or any other number of writers that could be described as either libertarian/classical liberal or anarchist. Did Somalia do it's best to implement "that government is best which governs least" and go from a paradise to a crap hole, or did it already have a lot of existing problems that had nothing to do with minarchist or anarchist ideas?
Jhessail said:
Libertarianism seeks a society with no government or very minimal government. Somalia has had no government or only a very minimal government ever since the civil war started. Now, a civil war is obviously not the fault of libertarianism, but Somalia really is the only country - that I know of - where even after the civil war ended, no effective central government has really been formed. Instead, you get "quiet" phases before some new(ish) group re-ignites the civil war. I've never heard any convincing argument from Libertarians how this circle could be broken.
What convincing argument have you heard from non-libertarians on how the circle can be broken? The typical solution seems to be establishment of a government by outside forces, which has worked out oh-so well over the last quarter century, right? Especially since that outside intervention often seems to directly contribute to the violence flareups.
And again, do you really think that it's the fault of libertarianism that no central government has formed in Somalia? Is it really true that they've been on the verge of having a state formed, but a bunch of libertarians blocked it and caused the country to devolve back into tribal factions? Or is Jhessail not hearing a convincing argument from a particular political philosophy the only necessary criteria for blaming said philosophy for Somalia's woes?
Jhessail said:
They seem to magically thinking that no external power or a domestic extremist group would actually try to take over all power.
How much do you even really know about either libertarians or anarchists? I'm far from being "well versed" in any form of anarchism, but even my minimal reading indicates that they're very aware that lots and lots of human beings are power hungry and would seek to seize control of any stateless society. They have various arguments about how to prevent such a thing from happening, but I'm not really an anarchist (though I admit some sympathy for certain forms) and don't have any desire to try and argue their philosophy.
Jhessail said:
This is also why there are two semi-independent regions in the northern parts, as the power-jockeying between clans and groups has been more active the southern and middle parts. For shame though, there exists a semblance of a central government in both, so they don't really qualify for the Libertarian dream.
Again you seem to not understand that libertarianism and anarchism are not the same thing. There's even less justification for this confusion (or willful misrepresentation?) than there is for asserting that every single feminist is some sort of tumblr addicted "radfem," since the anarchist libertarians are by no means a super loud subset that get a huge amount of attention.
And explain exactly how the tribal conflicts are caused by libertarianism. I'm interested to hear how a political philosophy that focuses on individualism and personal liberty contributes to tribalism; "Those guys should have the same rights as us, and the 'non-aggression principle' is central to our ideology, so...lets go shoot at them and take over their territory!" Yea, sure.
Jhessail said:
As for Somalia doing better than
many other (government-having) African nations
I'm just going to call absolute bull**** on such a claim, because the only evidence for such a claim comes from Benjamin Powell's article at
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/somalia-failed-state-economic-success, whic is then partially misquoted by the soure you linked and definitely cherry-picked. The actual conclusion reads:
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.
Do you have any sources that contradict their results, or are you just dismissing it because you don't like their findings? And is it really hard to believe that Somalia, without a central state, is doing better than some other African nations with governments that are often corrupt, oppressive, and very heavy handed?
You don't see me telling people that want a stronger state than I do that they should move to such-and-such African country, or Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, and I certainly wouldn't believe that such a comment would be any kind of "gotcha!" argument. Nor do you see me blaming those people for supporting the ousted military dictator of Somalia, even though some of their governments did exactly that. But you keep right on with those hard hitting arguments, they're oh-so-damning.
P.S.
It's amusing that the first part that you bolded directly supports the anarchists' arguments.
