Somalia, libertarian paradise

whiteonion

Somalia is truly a libertarian "paradise". There is basically no functioning central government. Everything in the country is free market, even law enforcement is being carried out by private groups. If you hate taxes, regulations and goverment and love guns you should move to Somalia. Somalia is the logic consequence of a free and totally unregulated market.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BX2aSG8RqEU/SgIOObG0-EI/AAAAAAAAB-E/cPgIvKNFOrE/s1600-h/Hate+Taxes+Government+Regulations,+Love+Guns+-+It%27s+better+in+Somalia.jpg

ei.sdraob

some reading for you

whiteonion

Well at least the libertarians at the Ludvig von Mises institute seem to think that Somalia is a libertarian role model we should follow. http://mises.org/daily/2066

p1akuw47h5r3it

whiteonion wrote: »

Somalia is truly a libertarian "paradise". There is basically no functioning central government. Everything in the country is free market, even law enforcement is being carried out by private groups. If you hate taxes, regulations and goverment and love guns you should move to Somalia. Somalia is the logic consequence of a free and totally unregulated market.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BX2aSG8RqEU/SgIOObG0-EI/AAAAAAAAB-E/cPgIvKNFOrE/s1600-h/Hate+Taxes+Government+Regulations,+Love+Guns+-+It%27s+better+in+Somalia.jpg

What Libertarian wants a "non functioning Government"?

They want a Small Goverment, not a non-functioning one. Two completely different things.

Hong Kong would be a better example of a libertarian paradise (from an economic viewpoint anyway)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong

CokaColumbo

Statists consistently refer to Somalia as a sort of 'case-study' of libertarianism in action. How does a country which has been marked by 20 years of civil war; attempted military take-overs; government and warlord atrocities; genocide; general government oppression and an absence of free-elections; absolutely no law and order in many parts; and Islamic rule constitute anything related to libertarianism?

cavedave

There is an interesting post here about how libertarian New Zealand is.

By the general axiom of revealed preference, the increment of liberty isn't worth the loss of income (and inconvenience of moving and living abroad) for the vast majority of libertarians

The point that by many measures New Zealand is more libertarian than most places that libertarians do live in (like California).

I think the Somalia argument is a very poor strawman. But I do think its reasonable to ask libertarians why they don't live in the socially free Netherlands or low tax areas of the US or in New Zealand.

p1akuw47h5r3it

cavedave wrote: »

There is an interesting post here about how libertarian New Zealand is.



The point that by many measures New Zealand is more libertarian than most places that libertarians do live in (like California).

I think the Somalia argument is a very poor strawman. But I do think its reasonable to ask libertarians why they don't live in the socially free Netherlands or low tax areas of the US or in New Zealand.

I don't understand what u mean by this. Do you mean why Libertarians in Ireland, for example, don't move there?

ei.sdraob

cavedave wrote: »

There is an interesting post here about how libertarian New Zealand is.



The point that by many measures New Zealand is more libertarian than most places that libertarians do live in (like California).

I think the Somalia argument is a very poor strawman. But I do think its reasonable to ask libertarians why they don't live in the socially free Netherlands or low tax areas of the US or in New Zealand.

One can live in Ireland and keep the business and money abroad in "more liberal" countries such as Switzerland ....

Well if it wasnt for the Irish economic "libertarianism" we would remain a pimple on the ass side of the atlantic

hoorsmelt

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Well if it wasnt for the Irish economic "libertarianism" we would remain a pimple on the ass side of the atlantic

Indeed we would have remained much less noticeable. Instead we're now in the position where the debts racked up in this country by reckless investment, a property market gone crazy and an unregulated financial system threaten to bring down the euro and have made Ireland (more precisely the threat of an Irish default on bank debt) a problem that could conceivably bring down the eurozone.

ei.sdraob

hoorsmelt wrote: »

Indeed we would have remained much less noticeable. Instead we're now in the position where the debts racked up in this country by reckless investment, a property market gone crazy and an unregulated financial system threaten to bring down the euro and have made Ireland (more precisely the threat of an Irish default on bank debt) a problem that could conceivably bring down the eurozone.

Whose bright idea was it to "socialize" bank losses

hoorsmelt

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Whose bright idea was it to "socialize" bank losses

FF, the PD's and the Greens. Nothing inherently uncapitalistic about taking steps to prtect the ruling class's economic position and use the economic power of the capitalist state to rescue their system.

ei.sdraob

hoorsmelt wrote: »

FF, the PD's and the Greens. Nothing inherently uncapitalistic about taking steps to prtect the ruling class's economic position and use the economic power of the capitalist state to rescue their system.

Thats not very libertarian now is it

cavedave

Raina Rapping Whiskey
"But I do think its reasonable to ask libertarians why they don't live in the socially free Netherlands or low tax areas of the US or in New Zealand."

I don't understand what u mean by this. Do you mean why Libertarians in Ireland, for example, don't move there?

Yes that is what I mean. What about it was hard to understand?

ei.sdraob

One can live in Ireland and keep the business and money abroad in "more liberal" countries such as Switzerland ....

Can you? I thought if you lived in Ireland you had to pay Irish income taxes (as well as VAT on goods you bought here).

ei.sdraob

cavedave wrote: »

Can you? I thought if you lived in Ireland you had to pay Irish income taxes (as well as VAT on goods you bought here).

To some degree yes, of course we have plenty of indirect taxes...

Manic Moran

But I do think its reasonable to ask libertarians why they don't live in the socially free Netherlands or low tax areas of the US or in New Zealand.

Can't speak for libertarians per se, but the weather's better here.

NTM

SupaNova

Yes that is what I mean. What about it was hard to understand?

I guess he was a bit surprised at the stupidity of the question.

p1akuw47h5r3it

SupaNova wrote: »

I guess he was a bit surprised at the stupidity of the question.

Ye pretty much.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cavedave

SupaNova

I guess he was a bit surprised at the stupidity of the question.

Why is the question stupid? For example the marginal revolution blog of libertarian economics professor Tyler Cowen though it was a reasonable question here (cached as the site is down for search currently)

Manic Moran

Can't speak for libertarians per se, but the weather's better here.

Libertarians like everyone else put a value on being around their family, friends certain weather etc.

We also claim to put a high value on individual freedom. Being both social freedom to take drugs and go with prostitutes as long as that does not impinge on anyone else and financial freedom to earn money without excess intervention from government. If we did value these libertarian principles we should emigrate to countries that espouse them at greater rates

p1akuw47h5r3it

cavedave wrote: »

Why is the question stupid? For example the marginal revolution blog of libertarian economics professor Tyler Cowen though it was a reasonable question here (cached as the site is down for search currently)



Libertarians like everyone else put a value on being around their family, friends certain weather etc.

We also claim to put a high value on individual freedom. Being both social freedom to take drugs and go with prostitutes as long as that does not impinge on anyone else and financial freedom to earn money without excess intervention from government. If we did value these libertarian principles we should emigrate to countries that espouse them at greater rates

Because not every libertarian is in a position to simply leave for another country.

SupaNova

Your question is stupid because the answers are obvious. I mean you realize the following:

Libertarians like everyone else put a value on being around their family, friends certain weather etc.

And then wonder why Libertarians don't move to the other side of the world.:rolleyes:

cavedave

Raina Rapping Whiskey

Because not every libertarian is in a position to simply leave for another country.

SupaNova

And then wonder why Libertarians don't move to the other side of the world.

Thats the reason the question is stupid? Because thats a pretty stupid reason. Of course not every libertarian would leave the country but "If we did value these libertarian principles we should emigrate to countries that espouse them at greater rates "

SupaNova

Your question is stupid because the answers are obvious.

.

RepublicanEagle

libertarian paradise?

Are you serious OP? You obviously have no idea what is really happening there.

The word I believe you are looking for is total anarchy.

Put it this way OP if there ever was a post-apocalyptic scenario the whole world would resemble Somalia's situation.

p1akuw47h5r3it

cavedave wrote: »

Thats the reason the question is stupid? Because thats a pretty stupid reason. Of course not every libertarian would leave the country but "If we did value these libertarian principles we should emigrate to countries that espouse them at greater rates "

What are you talking about?

Not everyone who considers themselves a Libertarian is in a position to simply up and leave to a considered more liberal country.

How is this a stupid answer? It's just a factual answer.

whiteonion

Somalia is the logical outcome of libertarianism. Cuba is the logical outcome of socialism.

Valmont

whiteonion wrote: »

Somalia is the logical outcome of libertarianism

Logical outcome of anarchy maybe, but not of small government libertarianism. Let me repeat that- Small Government libertarianism.

cavedave

Raina Rapping Whiskey

What are you talking about?

Not everyone who considers themselves a Libertarian is in a position to simply up and leave to a considered more liberal country.

How is this a stupid answer? It's just a factual answer.

I am talking about placing a value on freedom and how the valuations libertarians claim to put on them mean they should be more likely to move to to countries with greater freedom.

If the answer to this optimization is so obvious why did
The Volokh Conspiracy discuss it here (with 70 comments)

Marginal revolution already quoted

Econlog here

Catallaxy Files Eric Crampton makes a very good argument.

All these well respected libertarian blogs think the question is worthy of a descent analysis yet Raina Rapping Whiskey and SupaNova you think the question is too stupid to make sense or to try rebut. Does that imply you may be setting your required standard of argument too high?



If new zealand is too far the Netherlands and Denmark are more libertarian than here according to political compass

Valmont

cavedave wrote: »

All these well respected libertarian blogs think the question is worthy of a descent analysis...

For me, I guess the reasoning is that some libertarians are angry that they can't enjoy freedom in their own country with their families and friends and that moving away would be "giving in" or something. I'm slightly annoyed at having to leave Ireland to go to a healthier country but I'm not sure every libertarian would be in a position to just up and leave like I did. In fact, in Ireland, I'm sure even the communists are leaving...!

UsernameInUse

What is so horrifically frightening to us that we can't follow a more socially and economically libertarian path to prosperity? Hong Kong is the most free economy on Earth and they're having very little problems thus far...it seems that Joe Higgins and Co have quite the opposite in mind - to bring Ireland back into the stone-age. These people should make use of our free healthcare and get their dementia symptoms sorted.

Overheal

whiteonion wrote: »

Somalia is truly a libertarian "paradise". There is basically no functioning central government. Everything in the country is free market, even law enforcement is being carried out by private groups. If you hate taxes, regulations and goverment and love guns you should move to Somalia. Somalia is the logic consequence of a free and totally unregulated market.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BX2aSG8RqEU/SgIOObG0-EI/AAAAAAAAB-E/cPgIvKNFOrE/s1600-h/Hate+Taxes+Government+Regulations,+Love+Guns+-+It%27s+better+in+Somalia.jpg

I approve of this sattire

In all seriousness though most functioning libertarians agree a governments narrow list of functions includes things like emergency services (like police forces) and defense. They aren't anarchists or nihilists. They still believe that you need to enforce laws that protect the rights of the individual.

southsiderosie

UsernameInUse wrote: »

What is so horrifically frightening to us that we can't follow a more socially and economically libertarian path to prosperity? Hong Kong is the most free economy on Earth and they're having very little problems thus far...it seems that Joe Higgins and Co have quite the opposite in mind - to bring Ireland back into the stone-age. These people should make use of our free healthcare and get their dementia symptoms sorted.

Yes, but Hong Kong tightened up real estate lending requirements after painful boom and bust cycles in the 80s and 90s. It is still a crazy market there, but having some regulations in place is considered good for business, since it keeps the wheels turning (rather than sending the cart off the track). The HK government (yes there is one) deserves some credit for learning from past policy mistakes, even if they don't necessarily listen to citizens while they are making them. The inability of the Irish government - and Irish voters - to learn from its own economic history is a huge part of the problem there.

Also, t's not just the fact that Hong Kong Chinese have a liberal economy that explains their economic success. There is a deeply ingrained culture of business, entrepreneurship, and wheeling and dealing. Social prestige comes from making money and entrepreneurship is revered: when you open a business, people send huge flower arrangements and congratulatory messages. And when businesses fail, that's it: nobody comes to save you, you just close, dust yourself off, and start again. Ireland doesn't have that culture, and simply changing economic institutions to look more like Hong Kong's would not necessarily produce the same economic outcomes.

OhNoYouDidn't

UsernameInUse wrote: »

What is so horrifically frightening to us that we can't follow a more socially and economically libertarian path to prosperity? Hong Kong is the most free economy on Earth and they're having very little problems thus far...it seems that Joe Higgins and Co have quite the opposite in mind - to bring Ireland back into the stone-age. These people should make use of our free healthcare and get their dementia symptoms sorted.

This is a surreal post. You are arguing for communist ruled Hong Kong as a model while complaining that Higgins et all might 'bring Ireland back to the stone age' if they got to implement left wing reform.

So there is now good communism and bad communism?

SupaNova

This is a surreal post. You are arguing for communist ruled Hong Kong as a model while complaining that Higgins et all might 'bring Ireland back to the stone age' if they got to implement left wing reform.

So there is now good communism and bad communism?

China is communist in name only. They are a very very capitalistic country. Joe Higgins would be laughed at in China.

OhNoYouDidn't

SupaNova wrote: »

China is communist in name only. They are a very very capitalistic country. Joe Higgins would be laughed at in China.

This right here is why the libertarians on here are not taken seriously.

China is a brutal suppressor of human rights. The entire economy is centrally planned. If you want to put it forward as a liberal model you aspire too while deriding the Irish left, you are fair game to be dismissed as downright confused.

At least permabear can put together a coherent argument. This is just plain daft.

SupaNova

I don't put China forward as a liberal model. I just pointed out they are not much more communist than we are. They have State Capitalism which has been a step forward for them. The political and economic system Joe Higgins would like to see would be a giant step backwards for them. That's why I said he would be laughed at.

The entire economy is centrally planned.

No its not. See the definition of a centrally planned economy.

SupaNova

Also in this thread people have mentioned the success of Hong Kong which as far as i'm aware has its own government.

OhNoYouDidn't

SupaNova wrote: »

Also in this thread people have mentioned the success of Hong Kong which as far as i'm aware has its own government.

You aren't getting away that easily. Explain to the group how Ireland is as communist as China please.

SupaNova

China is not much more communist than we are

I should have added "in terms of their economy".

20Cent

Hong Kong sounds horrible:

"100,000 people live in inadequate housing, a category that includes cubicle, cage, rooftop and partitioned dwellings."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917897,00.html

They have "cage appartments" there!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cavedave

20Cent

"100,000 people live in inadequate housing, a category that includes cubicle, cage, rooftop and partitioned dwellings."

I think its worth pointing out that Hong Kong is the greatest economic experiment ever. I dont doubt some of the accomodation is terrible. But is it terrible according to the most probable alternative which is effectively North Korea?

The Chinese say how rich Hong Kong was and how poor they were and decided to copy hong kong in special economic zones nearby. Last time I looked this lifted 200 million people out of awful subsistence level (or below that) poverty that China endured in Mao's time

In 1974, the future Chinese premier Deng Xiaoping led a large delegation to the United Nations in New York. Chinese officials discovered, as they prepared for the expensive trip, that the could muster only $38,000 in foreign cash

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the history of the place. But you cannot seriously suggest to me that a brutally politically policed place like HK is a model for Libertarians.

What is interesting about the place is that it has shattered the right wing mantra that 'you cannont have economic freedom without policial freedom and policitical freedom without economic freedom'

I suppose it all comes down to whats more important to you. The ability to turn a buck or the right to speak your mind without getting tortured.

southsiderosie

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This is a surreal post. You are arguing for communist ruled Hong Kong as a model while complaining that Higgins et all might 'bring Ireland back to the stone age' if they got to implement left wing reform.

So there is now good communism and bad communism?

Hong Kong is not and was never communist ruled. They have a free and active press (the South China Morning Post is actually a great newspaper which regularly reports on industrial accidents and corruption in mainland China) and in the 1997 handover they kept all of their economic institutions intact. The "north" (as HK residents call the mainland) is slowly trying to assert itself there, mainly through pushing Mandarin and integrating HK into the national high speed rail network, but the Communist Party is not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, especially as Singapore is increasingly taking business away from HK. HK is not a democracy, but neither is it communist - if Beijing every really tried to crack down, by the end of the day, 2/3 of HKs capital would be out of the country.

cavedave wrote: »

I think its worth pointing out that Hong Kong is the greatest economic experiment ever. I dont doubt some of the accomodation is terrible. But is it terrible according to the most probable alternative which is effectively North Korea?

The Chinese say how rich Hong Kong was and how poor they were and decided to copy hong kong in special economic zones nearby. Last time I looked this lifted 200 million people out of awful subsistence level (or below that) poverty that China endured in Mao's time

I'm confused by this. Why is the alternative North Korea?

Everyone sucked it up for years as the province struggled up the economic ladder, and perhaps it is time to reassess social policy. In a city that is grotesquely wealthy, it does not seem right that living conditions are so poor for so many. But the cage apartments are also a symbol of HKs power to draw people in: migrants from all over China would rather try their luck starting at the bottom in HK than stay in their home villages, and the government works very hard to keep all the people who want to work there out. In some ways, HK is like the US in this regard: if you migrate there, nobody is going to help you, but nobody is really going to stand in your way either. Therefore these places attract the kind of people who are willing to forgo a lot in the present in the hopes of a better future.

SupaNova

I think its worth pointing out that Hong Kong is the greatest economic experiment ever. I dont doubt some of the accomodation is terrible. But is it terrible according to the most probable alternative which is effectively North Korea?

The Chinese say how rich Hong Kong was and how poor they were and decided to copy hong kong in special economic zones nearby. Last time I looked this lifted 200 million people out of awful subsistence level (or below that) poverty that China endured in Mao's time

This what I am referring to. The economic policies and ideologies of Joe Higgins and the far left would have them in far worse shape. China, South Korea, India, Thailand and others that are embracing capitalism have come along way. True they have developed economically much quicker than socially.

The general point of the thread seems to be to try and associate Libertarians with standing for terrible regimes, or being for abuse of human rights which is not true.

southsiderosie

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you on the history of the place. But you cannot seriously suggest to me that a brutally politically policed place like HK is a model for Libertarians.

What is interesting about the place is that it has shattered the right wing mantra that 'you cannont have economic freedom without policial freedom and policitical freedom without economic freedom'

I suppose it all comes down to whats more important to you. The ability to turn a buck or the right to speak your mind without getting tortured.

Have you been to Hong Kong? There is a free press, and people are allowed to protest. Hong Kong is nowhere near 'brutally politically policed'. It is not a Western-style democracy, but it's no gulag.

OhNoYouDidn't

SupaNova wrote: »

This what I am referring to. The economic policies and ideologies of Joe Higgins and the far left would have them in far worse shape. China, South Korea, India, Thailand and others that are embracing capitalism have come along way. True they have developed economically much quicker than socially.

So China = good communism, Joe Higgins = bad communism.

What tripe.

SupaNova wrote: »

The general point of the thread seems to be to try and associate Libertarians with standing for terrible regimes, or being for abuse of human rights which is not true.

Thats what I thought. Until I saw Libertarians argue for Hong Kong.

OhNoYouDidn't

southsiderosie wrote: »

Have you been to Hong Kong? There is a free press, and people are allowed to protest. Hong Kong is nowhere near 'brutally politically policed'. It is not a Western-style democracy, but it's no gulag.

Its no Gulag unless you are Falung Gong or a pro democracy activist.

Yes, HK isn't as brutally supressed as inland China. But we aren't even close to acceptible human rights.

But, hey, if you can make a buck there and pay no tax, some libertarians will do what they can do defend it

SupaNova

So China = good communism, Joe Higgins = bad communism.

What tripe.

I'm talking about economics. China is not communist when it comes to economics. Joe Higgins is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its no Gulag unless you are Falung Gong or a pro democracy activist.

Yes, HK isn't as brutally supressed as inland China. But we aren't even close to acceptible human rights.

But, hey, if you can make a buck there and pay no tax, some libertarians will do what they can do defend it

People do pay taxes in HK; they have a flat tax.

Most HKers are actually pretty happy to be able to make a buck and otherwise be left alone. The most vociferous protests I have seen in my time there were over banking and pension issues. People can and do protest against the government and financial institutions if they think their capacity to make - or more importantly save money - is at risk.

Perhaps things will be different in the future, but HKs wealth is relatively new, and most people are not that far removed from grinding poverty. The big trade-off that many Asian countries have made is giving up some political and social rights for economic rights, namely that their governments will carefully manage economic expansion, while maintaining a safe, orderly society. By and large, HK (and South Korea, and Singapore) have done this. Mainland China is a much messier process, which isn't surprising given the size and their starting point. But you simply cannot lump HK in with the rest of China, or treat it as some kind of crushing, authoritarian state. Personally I found the state to be much more heavy-handed and intrusive in everyday life in London than in Hong Kong, but perhaps that is just me.