All I got from this article was that central government is the solution.
http://news.yahoo.com/donors-step-ties-somalia-praise-rebuilding-efforts-004311169.html
I don't understand why some libertarians fetishise Somalia. Just because there's no central government it doesn't mean there aren't opressive power structures and illegitimate uses of force. Is a patchwork of warlords, pirates, and jihadi sects really such a wonderful place? Is that really what constitutes statelessness?
I don't understand why some libertarians fetishise Somalia.
Yeah, because every fucking time it's libertarians who bring up somalia.
I still can not get anyone to respond to my simple request that if the entire world leaves Somalia alone for 10 years. After that time if Somalia is not the fastest and most rapidly developing country in Africa then go ahead and give them the blessings of central government and its force and violence. Everybody knows that left alone, Somalia will become a haven for entrepreneurs, it is now, and start attracting foreign investors. In the past several years the US Government has sponsored at least two invasions and in the previous century conducted one invasion on its own.
yarrr
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
Bogart:
I agree, I've made the same argument/defense of Somalia's statelessness being that it's a battleground for proxy wars.
However, the response is: "Well, realistically, doesn't the lack of a state create a power vacuum that will invariably lead to outside interference from nearby states, preventing Somalia (or any stateless society) from establishing its own economic infrastructure or, consequently, a privately funded defense system?"