Somalia the libertarian paradise?

[DarthFishy]

I am not a libertarian but I keep seeing people on this forum claiming that libertarians should move to Somalia if they love freedom so much.

This being the same somalia where:

About 15% of the national budget is dedicated to education.
There is a central Bank.
There is (at least now) a President, Prime Minister, Parliment (which by law must be at least 30% female!), Cabinet and all the other bits of government.
A full Judiciary.

A host of other things that are pretty much the hallmarks of a normal country with a normal government.

Sure there were some major problems in the country (and still are), but maybe it's time to stop using it as a cheap rhetorical trick?

 

[Francesca R]

I would be surprised if anyone takes the "libertarianism = Somalia" canard seriously.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would be surprised if anyone takes the "libertarianism = Somalia" canard seriously.

Industrial revolution England and US are basically exactly what they want anyway. Bring back the good old london fogs.

 

[DarthFishy]

I would be surprised if anyone takes the "libertarianism = Somalia" canard seriously.

I sincerely hope so! Its continued use was just annoying me.

Also I learnt some new things (all from the wikipedia page on Somalia btw), so it wasn't a completely pointless exercise.

 

[Francesca R]

I am pretty sure it is meant to annoy.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I am not a libertarian but I keep seeing people on this forum claiming that libertarians should move to Somalia if they love freedom so much.

This being the same somalia where:

About 15% of the national budget is dedicated to education.
There is a central Bank.
There is (at least now) a President, Prime Minister, Parliment (which by law must be at least 30% female!), Cabinet and all the other bits of government.
A full Judiciary.

A host of other things that are pretty much the hallmarks of a normal country with a normal government.

Sure there were some major problems in the country (and still are), but maybe it's time to stop using it as a cheap rhetorical trick?

Stay calm, libertarianism hasn't had time to work there yet, but it's still a good model for predictive purposes.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, Somalia has a government, but it is a government that in ineffective. An ineffective government is what Liberatarianism is all about.

 

[carlitos]

"Who is Jeylaani Galt?"

 

[BobTheCoward]

Industrial revolution England and US are basically exactly what they want anyway. Bring back the good old london fogs.

While we are talking about libertarian canards, let's talk about this false notion that libertarians would lead to more pollution.

Air pollution exists because government claims ownership of the commons and government beurocrats get to choose how much pollution an individual gets to suffer. People have no recourse. Under libertarian principals of harm and ownership, people do own their air. As such, any pollution encroaching on my property ican get an immediate injunction closing down that polluter, regardless of how much good it does for society.

The problem with libertarianism isn't rampant exploitation. The problem is the near total loss of economic activity that makes modern life possible.

 

[Beerina]

I am pretty sure it is meant to annoy.

Gee, ya think? The proper political axis from a libertarian point of view isn't left-right, it's freedom to be secure in your property so you can pursue economic interests, vs. being unsecure.

At the unsecure end are not socialist governments, or even communist, but failed states, where warlordism and thievery run rampant. Then come communism and corrupt regimes, where kickbacks must happen or nothing gets done. And thus usually doesn't.

The intuitive model is a farmer who has a secure field to plant, and then is secure to sell their product at the end. But it absolutely requires a government both strong enough to tamp down thievery and corruption, without becoming corrupt because of that strength.

The libertarian just objects to violating that because "programs" reintroduce lack of security via taxes, as do regulation...with attendant kickbacks to politicians to get them back out of the way. But the confused belief by many that any good by government is the domain of the conventional socialist's bragging rights is nonsense.

We've been doing it that way for tens of thousands of years, but only with security of property and body has rapid progress been made.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No they don't. The proper political axis from a libertarian point of view isn't left-right, it's freedom to be secure in your property so you can pursue economic interests, vs. being unsecure.

Odd, I see it as "I'll keep mine and to hell with the rest of you."

 

[ponderingturtle]

While we are talking about libertarian canards, let's talk about this false notion that libertarians would lead to more pollution.

Air pollution exists because government claims ownership of the commons and government beurocrats get to choose how much pollution an individual gets to suffer. People have no recourse. Under libertarian principals of harm and ownership, people do own their air. As such, any pollution encroaching on my property ican get an immediate injunction closing down that polluter, regardless of how much good it does for society.

So all you need to do is prove in court exactly who caused the issue in your property. Then of course you get the courts and goverment to close everyone down, because anyone burning anything will impact everyone so everyone must be stopped. Then we collapse to a paleolithic level of society.

And libertatians love the goverment, why else would they put so much faith in the courts.

 

[3point14]

While we are talking about libertarian canards, let's talk about this false notion that libertarians would lead to more pollution.

Air pollution exists because government claims ownership of the commons and government beurocrats get to choose how much pollution an individual gets to suffer. People have no recourse. Under libertarian principals of harm and ownership, people do own their air. As such, any pollution encroaching on my property ican get an immediate injunction closing down that polluter, regardless of how much good it does for society.

The bit I am still unclear on is who pays for the court or other adjudicators.

 

[DavidJames]

While we are talking about libertarian canards, let's talk about this false notion that libertarians would lead to more pollution.

Air pollution exists because government claims ownership of the commons and government beurocrats get to choose how much pollution an individual gets to suffer. People have no recourse. Under libertarian principals of harm and ownership, people do own their air. As such, any pollution encroaching on my property ican get an immediate injunction closing down that polluter, regardless of how much good it does for society.

My word, what utter nonsense. There is nothing preventing that magical injunction now, other then the corporations themselves. Stop blaming government for problems created by businesses.

Back on topic, of course Somalia isn't really Libertarian, because Libertopia doesn't exist anywhere on earth because it's unworkable. It's naive, child like in it's maturity.

 

[Segnosaur]

The bit I am still unclear on is who pays for the court or other adjudicators.

I believe the libertarian attitude is that income taxes aren't necessary, but things like the courts or national defense can be funded by things like customs duties. (With the idea being if the government is not spending on things like medicare, welfare and corporate bailouts they can get by on a lot less money.)

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I believe the libertarian attitude is that income taxes aren't necessary, but things like the courts or national defense can be funded by things like customs duties. (With the idea being if the government is not spending on things like medicare, welfare and corporate bailouts they can get by on a lot less money.)

Yeah, "NOT MY MONEY" for anything.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My word, what utter nonsense. There is nothing preventing that magical injunction now, other then the corporations themselves. Stop blaming government for problems created by businesses.

Back on topic, of course Somalia isn't really Libertarian, because Libertopia doesn't exist anywhere on earth because it's unworkable. It's naive, child like in it's maturity.

In libertarian land the courts will always instantly grant such injunctions don't you know.

 

[BobTheCoward]

My word, what utter nonsense. There is nothing preventing that magical injunction now, other then the corporations themselves. Stop blaming government for problems created by businesses.

Back on topic, of course Somalia isn't really Libertarian, because Libertopia doesn't exist anywhere on earth because it's unworkable. It's naive, child like in it's maturity.

No, you can't just get an injunction for pollution. There are a whole set of laws covering injunctions on the commons. They are a lot harder than injunctions against harm to your property. But if you actually own the air above your property, injunctions are easier.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes, Somalia has a government, but it is a government that in ineffective. An ineffective government is what Liberatarianism is all about.

I think a Libertarian would disagree with you.

A libartarian wants a government that is effective, but only in the areas that it should be involved in. They want an effective police system. They want an effective court system. They want an effective military (for homeland defense only).

As for Somalia=libertarian paridise... even if they've managed to keep a court system running, it will be a long time before it can be considered stable or effective enough to consider it "libertarian".

 

[Shadowdweller]

The Somali government held up as an example of successful libertarianism because the government is essentially non-sovereign. Citing an educational spending figure of 15% (or whatever percentage) is meaningless; either to refute or support this so-called "canard". It tells you nothing about net government taxation or spending.

A better example of the imbecility of Libertarianism can just as easily be found by checking figures such as these and then maybe cross-referencing vs some measure of standard of living.