What's the deal with Somalia?

Autolykos:

Another purpose is to implicitly argue that anarcho-capitalists are hypocrites - if they prefer living under no government to living under a government, regardless of the standard of living, then they'd logically move to where there's no government. However, this is typically a strawman argument, as most anarcho-capitalists do take the standard of living into account.

So many great points by Autolykos, however I think his second it the strongest.

On a broader note, most everybody, regardless of any political or religious ideology they may subscribe to, agrees on the desired end: achieving the highest standard of living possible on this Earth. It is the means by which we can achieve this goal that is debated. Ergo, it would make sense for anyone, Ancaps included, to want to live in the country he feels has the highest standard of living. Now, standard of living is a VERY subjective valuation, and it varies from person to person (which is why anarchy would be great - you are free to develop the society you see fit to live in). However, there are some measurements routinely used to gauge standard of living that a great majority of people agree are useful when measuring such a thing as standard of living. These include access to healthcare, access to clean drinking water, availability of new technologies, cost of living, and private property rights.

That being said, even these figures are somewhat subjective, and the methods by which they are calculated are also often debated among professionals of varying kinds. The last measurement I mentioned, the strength of private property rights, can also be perceived as either totally bad or totally good depending on who you talk to. A dedicated communist, for instance, will tell you that private property is a totally bad thing, whereas an AnCap will tell you it is a totally good thing. This illustrates an important lesson: anytime you are presented with a ranked list of standard of living, always look at the study's methods of measurement to make sure they conform to your conception of what the measurement should be measuring. If you take these studies at face value, you could be loosing out on very relevant and valuable information.

Ok, so moving on, it is true that AnCaps believe that the existence of a government is one of the largest, if not the largest, contributing factors to the detriment of a people living within the boundaries of a nation's lands and laws. Thus, AnCaps believe that the existence of the state will, on net, be to a country's detriment when measuring standard of living. However, many other factors contribute to standard of living. These include a given society's access to plentiful and varied resources, a society's available food items which directly influence nutrition quality; a factor integral to the relative productivity of one people over another.

Also effecting standard of living would be the general culture of the people living in the society. If the vast majority of a society holds a strict religious ritual that 5 hour naps be taken every day in the middle of the work day, then that economy will probably suffer for it, regardless of whether or not a state exists. If the people of that society value the nap more than the productivity they have lost because of it, then this is not a problem because they are making that choice and accepting the consequences thereof. This again stresses the importance of anarchy over the state. 

In a free society, the majority are free to take naps. You, being an industrious entrepreneur, may prefer to work during those 5 hours to get a leg up over your competitors, or you may not. The only thing the state is capable of doing in this situation is creating an opportunity for your competitors to lobby the government to create a law forcing the naps on everybody so that you loose your competitive advantage and they still get their nap. To add insult to injury, you now also have to pay a fee for this little kick in the nuts; this fee is called taxes. Pretty raw deal, huh? 

What is most important to understand about this is that in the framework of a state, society is viewed as a singular entity. This necessarily means that the majority rule will likely be THE rule. Conversely, a free society has no boundaries. You are a citizen of Earth, so to speak, and everyone is viewed as their own sovereign individual. This characteristic is the ingredient that makes it possible for you to look down your nose at the nappers and keep working if you damn well please. In a state, you are a mere cog in the machine, and if on the whole that machine feels you are counterproductive to its desired ends (the nap) then you are a defective part and must be "repaired" (punished or regulated), or if you are really contemptuous to the machine, you must be replaced entirely (death). So you see that each individual is there own micro-economy in a sense. What I mean by that is, in the free society, should the majority choose to nap and the economy of that people is adversely effected because of the nap, it does not necessarily follow that the nap must adversely effect you. On the contrary, you can make it to your advantage by doing as I mentioned and working during your competitors' sleepy time. The existence of a state can only mire this wonderful quality. 

You may ask, "how can you, on one hand, say the economy of a people is adversely affected by the nap and, on the other, say there are no boundaries and everyone is their own micro-economy? Wouldn't that mean that there really are defined and separate economies?"

To answer your question: yes and no. Yes, because geography defines economies to some degree for you. The resources available to you from the land you live on, to placement of your landmass relative to other landmasses being separated by bodies of water all play a role in this natural separation between economies. However, I answer no to your question in the sense that in a free society, there are theoretically no legally defined barriers between one economy and another. 

However, another reality you must face is that while your society may be free, many others may, and probably will, not be, and you are forced to deal with this reality. In this sense though, the differing nation-states' economies we know of today live in a state of anarchy with each other. If the world were stateless, imagine those relationships being reduced to microscopic levels and in the billions instead of the several hundred we see today.

The other idea that must be understood is that we can never escape the peaceful actions of others that may indirectly adversely effect us. You may be able to work those five hours during which everyone else you know is napping, and it is at this point that you must accept the pros as well as the cons of freedom. Just as your competitors cannot prevent you from working, you cannot prevent your suppliers or your customers from napping. This is what I meant when I said that a culture of nappers will probably be detrimental to a given economy. In this case, it is detrimental to your economy, even if you aren't the one sleeping on the job. 

However, technology is making many hindrances like these irrelevant. If your society must nap 5 hours every work day, the internet, the telephone, and the computer are all means by which to reach other customers during that time who may be on the other end of the globe. These technologies have also made the problem of geography a thing of the past for many service industries. Even time itself, while still a valuable and scarce resource, has in many senses become an antiquated issue.          

So, while the existence of a state is widely regarded among AnCaps to be highly counterproductive to a good standard of living, it is not the only factor. Almost anybody, including most AnCaps, will tell you that the U.S. far surpasses Somalia in the area of standard of living, which is, at the end of the day, the only standard that really matters. It is either out of ignorance of the AnCap philosophy or through sheer disingenuousness and intellectually dishonesty that one would charge that we should move to Somalia if we don't believe in the existence of the state. For one, Somalia is not an anarchy, at least not in the AnCap sense of the word. But even if it was, as of right now, things are better here in the U.S. in spite, and not because of, a government.

What is important is to look to the future. Sure, right now it's better here in the good ol' US of A, but what are the trends? Right now nly matters right now. Past performance is no indicator of future performance. Sound logic, however, never changes. To quote Mises, "the criterion of truth is that it works even if nobody is prepared to acknowledge it.." So, where are we headed: toward the better or the worst? Where is Somalia headed: toward the better or the worst? I leave that question up to you to answer.