Evolution and Economy

[Woodsprite]

I think the point here is not whether Somalia is in a state of anarchy vs. libertarianism. Libertarianism supports government while anarchy opposes it. They're polar opposites. Even when you go to their extremes, they both adhere to certain principles, and those principles aren't eye-to-eye.

The question we should be looking at is: how did Somalia get this way? The answer isn't "Libertarianism", the answer is "Communism under General Barre". Libertarianism had nothing to do with the state that Somalia is in today, as history shows.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

That's ideal libertarianism, and you're comparing it to stereotypical anarchy. From an ideological standpoint libertarianism and anarchy are different ideologies (though admittedly similar, one more market-centric/with a 'lil more government than the other), but in reality libertarianism is pretty much just anarchy for rich people only. They want to get the government off their backs so they can have their way with the masses.

Completely wrong. Libertarianism opposes everything from excessive tax and wasting of money by governments to censorship and interference.

The only difference is that the one screwing you over goes from being the government to being corporations. Same ****, different *******. Just like in Somalia, the power just goes from being in the hands of a central government to local warlords and gang leaders.

In one model of anarchism. In a true libertarian country, neither would have the power to.

When libertarianism is put into the real world, preferential treatment is given to the ruling class, while the predation still remains for the rest of us.

Do you even understand what libertarianism is? You're thinking of anarchism with power blocs.

Anarchy in the real world is actually an interesting ideology. For it to work, all predatory centers of power must be taken down, whether it be governmental or not, including corporations and warlords. "Anarchy" that still allows centers of power (ie: libertarianism in the real world) leads to situations like Somalia. Anarchy were power is truly put in the hands of the people leads to places like Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, which actually became somewhat of a utopia.

The point of having a single centre of power which uses its power only to protect the national interests where necessary and protect the rights of people to their private lives is the ENTIRE POINT.
Anarchy with true lack of power might work, assuming every single individual avoids taking advantage of it, which will never happen because it requires people to go against their nature.

I would venture to say that if Somalia truly had anarchy, and that the power was really in the hands of the people of Somalia, not in the hands of the warlords or gangs, and that the people could truly rule their own world and get what they wanted, things would actually improve.

Anarchy is a lack of central government or other single ruling authority. Fits perfectly to me.

Though the three big obstacles to this are that: 1) The environment is totally shot to hell, 2) The people of Somalia are undereducated, and 3) religious extremism. With that said, Somalia needs a strong central government right now - to heal the land and the people, and squelch the warlords and religious extremists - so that maybe one day they could truly rule themselves, and be another Catalonia. Though the current system - where preferential treatment is given to the elite, who can freely continue to destroy the country - will never work.

Now this part, I do agree with.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I think the point here is not whether Somalia is in a state of anarchy vs. libertarianism. Libertarianism supports government while anarchy opposes it. They're polar opposites. Even when you go to their extremes, they both adhere to certain principles, and those principles aren't eye-to-eye.

The question we should be looking at is: how did Somalia get this way? The answer isn't "Libertarianism", the answer is "Communism under General Barre". Libertarianism had nothing to do with the state that Somalia is in today, as history shows.

Exactly. Libertarianism can still promote a strong government, just one that lets people live their lives without interference where practical. Somalia is closest to a failed state. There is a government, but its lack of control is due to weakness and religious extremism rather than any active decision to be the way it is.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Human No More

snip

Maybe libertarianism means something different in Europe, here in the US it has come to mean basically what I described. Libertarians here want a weak federal government, and basically all it's responsibilities handed over to private industry. Grover Norquist said he basically wanted to "drown government in the bath tub." Rand Paul said he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act because he feels it should be up to private business to determine who they do or do not serve. So maybe libertarianism here has departed from it's textbook definition and is basically becoming like anarcho-capitalism (which is a form of anarchy that would not end well for the people).