Yes, Somalia is -all things beeing equal- better off stateless. I have to think of Nozick, who claimed that the worst anarchy would be better than the worst state. Where would you rather want to live? In the Somalia of today or in the Ukraine 1932?
Somalia is a tough example because it was completely lacking in necessary institutions when it became anarchical. I see stable democracy of some sort or another as a necessary step between feudalism/tribalism/etc and a more free society. Stable democracy provides the environment for the development of institutions that will be needed for anarchy to be functional. I don't know of any "developed" economies that have experienced a significant governmental collapse, by which I mean complete collapse not contentious transfer of power. This would be a true test of market anarchy and I doubt that it is too far in the future. I wouldn't be surprised to see Thailand go there or some of the Eastern European countries.
Greg, I'm not sure I think the collapse of a state would be a good test for the sort of anarchy that most libertarian anarchists have in mind. In a collapsed state, there is usually a struggle for power that ends with a new state being implemented. It seems to me that the libertarians would want to see an ideological shift in a country that resulted in greater tolerance for voluntary forms of dissociation from the mainstream political order, thereby allowing for anarchy to arise peacefully out of a state-ordered system. At least, I should hope that the libertarian anarchists aren't rooting for political collapse!
Good point, my language was pretty misleading. My implication was that if the people of a developed nation lost faith in government, the beneficial and necessary institutions would likely not collapse along with the government. I have a friend in Thailand who tells me that all the local people view politics as a sham and don't accept either side as legitimately representing them. Nonetheless, aside from political violence, rule of law prevails. As Leeson puts it (thanks for the link), a developed country would likely become a first best anarchy, which would likely maintain the necessary and beneficial institutions of first best democracy, just without the monolithic centralized power backing them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me facepalm when some ancaps say that Somalia is a "good" example of anarchy.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, they are right when they say it's better than when it had a central. But it's still a third-world shithole.
Agreed. If you haven't listened to it already, Pete Leeson gave a really great lecture on it at FEE last summer.
ReplyDeleteYes, Somalia is -all things beeing equal- better off stateless.
ReplyDeleteI have to think of Nozick, who claimed that the worst anarchy would be better than the worst state. Where would you rather want to live? In the Somalia of today or in the Ukraine 1932?
I forgot: The video made me lol.
ReplyDeleteSomalia is a tough example because it was completely lacking in necessary institutions when it became anarchical. I see stable democracy of some sort or another as a necessary step between feudalism/tribalism/etc and a more free society. Stable democracy provides the environment for the development of institutions that will be needed for anarchy to be functional. I don't know of any "developed" economies that have experienced a significant governmental collapse, by which I mean complete collapse not contentious transfer of power. This would be a true test of market anarchy and I doubt that it is too far in the future. I wouldn't be surprised to see Thailand go there or some of the Eastern European countries.
ReplyDeleteGood point, blob.
ReplyDeleteGreg, I'm not sure I think the collapse of a state would be a good test for the sort of anarchy that most libertarian anarchists have in mind. In a collapsed state, there is usually a struggle for power that ends with a new state being implemented. It seems to me that the libertarians would want to see an ideological shift in a country that resulted in greater tolerance for voluntary forms of dissociation from the mainstream political order, thereby allowing for anarchy to arise peacefully out of a state-ordered system. At least, I should hope that the libertarian anarchists aren't rooting for political collapse!
Good point, my language was pretty misleading. My implication was that if the people of a developed nation lost faith in government, the beneficial and necessary institutions would likely not collapse along with the government. I have a friend in Thailand who tells me that all the local people view politics as a sham and don't accept either side as legitimately representing them. Nonetheless, aside from political violence, rule of law prevails. As Leeson puts it (thanks for the link), a developed country would likely become a first best anarchy, which would likely maintain the necessary and beneficial institutions of first best democracy, just without the monolithic centralized power backing them.
ReplyDeleteThat's really interesting about Thailand. Has your friend ever considered writing about the situation over there? I would love to hear more!
ReplyDelete