The Law of the Somalis, a Nation Successful Without Any Central Government

by dfps • 8 years ago

36 64 8 years ago

I know that Somalia as an example of a successful country and not an unsuccessful one has become popular among a certain subset of libertarians. (Probably not any large subset, just particularly vocal advocates like the Mises Institute.) But I have always found this odd, because classical libertarians tend to insist on the rights of the individual, and law in Somalia is based on the primacy of clans and extended families where the individual doesn’t count for much.

Robotbeat2• 8 years ago

I suspect they're just sick of people responding to "government is the problem, not the solution!" with "okay, well how is Somalia doing, then?"

nkrisc4• 8 years ago

People often get sick of being wrong.

moomin• 8 years ago

And clans... are states.

TheCoelacanth• 8 years ago

It always confuses me how right libertarians can have such a huge blind spot for coercive power coming from anything that doesn't look exactly like a nation-state. If a private organization can exercise coercive power over me, is that somehow better than if a nation-state can exercise coercive power over me? I don't see how. If anything it is worse because at least a democratic nation-state has some level of accountability to me in the form of voting. A private organization has no accountability to me at all.

ameister142• 8 years ago

Are they? The article was arguing that Somalia was a stateless society. I don't know much about these particular clans. Do they have a defined and more permanent central power structure?

peterwwillis3• 8 years ago

Well, no, clans are clans.

A clan is a group united by a real or perceived kinship. It is a form of extended family.

A tribe is a confederation of families that live closely with one another, have a common culture/dialect/ethnicity/etc, and a leader.

A state is a politically organized community that may or may not be sovereign.

A nation is an aggregate of people and/or communities united by common traits and living within a particular territory or country.

dfps11• 8 years ago

Good point.

Minor counter-point: I'm not sure if libertarianism is the goal of Somalians. A certain degree of liberty -- a significant say in how they conduct their own lives and not having a government telling them what not to do as much as we are used to -- but I think they also see the value of a court to temper individual liberty in certain cases.

A couple differences between their system and ours: the point where individual rights and social limitations meet is found where another individual suffers some grievance -- some of which, however, appear to be cultural and not material, although I'm not sure how small this segment is. Also, they seem to have some say in their courts, who administers justice for them, and how its administered.

shawndellysse• 8 years ago

It may be the only country in the world that has shown that they “don’t need central government” and was functioning fine.

For certain definitions of "functioning fine", yeah sure I'll buy that.

quantumofmalice• 8 years ago

As luck would have it, immigration to Somalia is both inexpensive and free from bureaucratic oversight, so I would encourage anyone who is inspired by this article to go with godspeed.

notahacker• 8 years ago

I think the most telling bit of the whole article is where the author is described as "a man who was eventually killed while trying to create his own region in Somalia"...

Strictly speaking Somalia and its various autonomous regions do now have government, though you still won't face many restrictions on migration, particularly not if you look like you have assets. But a certain period of Somalia's history is very appealing to a certain type of "libertarian" to whom the idea of no taxes, decentralised everything, no taxes, "polycentric law" consisting of clans trying to pay each other off to avoid blood feuds, no taxes, rugged entrepreneurs starting businesses against amazing odds and did I mention no taxes.

Unfortunately it doesn't correspond well with the reality of a society where ransoms were a major source of national income, stronger families generally could ensure the "judgement" they wanted irrespective of the facts of the case and women didn't even have enough ability to "preserve the dignity and integrity of their body" to not have bits of their genitals chopped off by clan elders.

zeveb2• 8 years ago

I think the most telling bit of the whole article is where the author is described as "a man who was eventually killed while trying to create his own region in Somalia"...

As I noted elsethread, that's not true: he died of heart failure[0].

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120205104310/http://www.isil.o...

mtgx• 8 years ago

Let's send Peter Thiel there. I'm sure he'd love it.

sharemywin4• 8 years ago

how do you sue companies out of existence if there's no government?

sharemywin4• 8 years ago

You can only down vote me so much Peter.

siculars• 8 years ago

By which measure are we determining success?

fredley2• 8 years ago

functioning fine

Here is the US Overseas Security Advisory Council report on Somalia for 2017: https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=218...

Pervasive and violent crime is an extension of the general state of insecurity in Somalia. Serious, brutal, and often fatal crimes are common. Kidnapping and robbery are particular problems in Mogadishu, other areas in the south, and in Galmuduug and Puntland.

empath752• 8 years ago

For a libertarian, they're not worried about that because they think they'll have enough guns to protect their.. uh, their bitcoin miner i guess? i'm not sure how they think they'll earn money.

nkrisc4• 8 years ago

Ever met a poor libertarian? They expect they'll be living in their walled compound surrounded by their private police force.

loriverkutya• 8 years ago

According to the British Goverment Somalia is not a successful nation:

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) advise against all travel to Somalia, including Somaliland except for the cities of Hargeisa and Berbera to which the FCO advise against all but essential travel. Any British nationals in areas of Somalia to which the FCO advise against all travel should leave. Any British nationals in Hargeisa or Berbera who are not on essential travel should leave.
Crime There is a dangerous level of criminal activity by armed militia throughout Somalia. There have been murders, armed robbery and a number of incidents of kidnapping. There are regular outbreaks of inter-clan violence throughout Somalia.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/somalia

gliese1337• 8 years ago

But how much of that is the result of foreign interference in the last few decades, with an attempt to forcibly install a new democratic government and replace existing social institutions, and how much of it is actually traceable to their traditional legal system?

dfps11• 8 years ago

This is an interesting point. I'd like to get some information on this myself. Of course, replacing ANY government or social system with another one will result in social upheaval and difficulties. In the book, van Notten alludes to this, and provides some insight, but it isn't really a clear and comprehensive statement.

vonnik3• 8 years ago

I don't think anyone considers Somalia a successful nation. It doesn't even cohere as a nation. Two northern regions -- Puntland and Somaliland -- have declared themselves to be separate, sovereign and autonomous states. A nation state's ability to cohere is the most basic criterion by which it should be judged. Those that fall apart, fail.

Also, from the law of the Somalis:

If no satisfactory decision comes about, the parties will most likely take matters into their own hands in terms of redressing the wrong by force.

This sounds horrifying, and it indicates that Somalia is not a country that abides by the rule of law, whatever definition you want to give to it.

The article's author strikes me as terribly naive about the nature and function of law in human societies, particularly in the developed world.

dfps11• 8 years ago

Successful by what standards or measures? I don't think the "cohere" argument is true, but do you have some examples I could think about? The Soviet Union didn't cohere, for one example I can think of. Neither did the British Empire, including America.

Is there any other basis for seeking peace ever? I think van Notten means here that this is the reason peace is usually sought, because violence is horrifying to those people as well. In North America we also hold violence as the reason to respect social order.

What are the main points about 'the nature and function of law in human societies, particularly in the developed world' you had in mind?

dfps11• 8 years ago

This is a helpful warning to travelers, but doesn't necessarily mean the nation isn't doing fine (for Somalis). Also, at different times most nations (or regions of nations) have different events, of course. Many of these warnings can be compared with warnings for other popular travel destinations, such as Guatemala, Mexico, Brazil, etc.

Wildgoose• 8 years ago

There is a difference between the formerly British controlled Somaliland and the former Italian colony of Somalia. The latter fell apart but the former retained a semblance of civil society. Without having read the article (it is blocked from my work account) I suspect the article is actually discussing Somaliland rather than Somalia.

azernik• 8 years ago

This is a libertarian discussing Somalia. The title sounds ridiculous because the article is ridiculous ideologically-motivated nonsense.

xenophonf• 8 years ago

Nope - Somaliland is a pretty dangerous place, too. From https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/somalia:

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) advise against all travel to Somalia, including Somaliland except for the cities of Hargeisa and Berbera to which the FCO advise against all but essential travel.

And from https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-tra...:

Violent crime, such as kidnapping and murder, is common throughout Somalia, including in Puntland and Somaliland. Illegal roadblocks are also widespread.

dsr_• 8 years ago

A relevant thought experiment:

How would you set up a social system, knowing that you would be reborn into it as a completely random member? That is, your chance of getting an education, having family stability, finding work and otherwise surviving being exactly in line with the way you set that system up from the beginning?

Secondarily relevant question: which existing system offers you the best probability of a satisfactory life given that random start? What features of that system make it better?

ameister142• 8 years ago

Kantian republic.

distances• 8 years ago

Secondarily relevant question: which existing system offers you the best probability of a satisfactory life given that random start? What features of that system make it better?

One of the Northern European social democracies is a strong bet. High-trust societies with free education, good social safety net in cast I end up in a broken family, and stable democracies with proven track record of improving the society vs. improving conditions just for the main voting populace.

I think that high-trust part is one of the most important ones if often overlooked. I think it means in practice that you don't have to worry of being ruined even if your clique doesn't win, and you don't have to second-guess everyone's true motives.

dfps11• 8 years ago

Good points.

dfps11• 8 years ago

Nice suggestion! What would be your own answer to it?

teilo• 8 years ago

And this, despite being an advocate for personal freedom and limited government, is why I am not a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist. They live in a fantasy land.

Culture matters, and no one form of government works for every nation. That is why it is just as much folly to impose western democracy upon the world as it would be to impose anarcho-capitalism upon the world.

sharemywin4• 8 years ago

I find it awful interesting that the person whose book is being cited was killed.

zeveb2• 8 years ago

That's actually incorrect: according to his obituary[0], he died of heart failure.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120205104310/http://www.isil.o...

sharemywin4• 8 years ago

New rule of politics:

When faced with facts that contradict your beliefs blame Hilary Clinton...

I think Hilary was involved with a plot to dis-prove capitalism works without government so she had him killed.

dfps11• 8 years ago

From other reading, I got the impression the circumstances were suspicious. The obit refers to heart failure, but without details. So I'm left without any certainty.

zentiggr• 8 years ago

Also, I have doubts about how the Somali system would survive serious clan or national conflicts once they emerge, or how the problem of violence spiraling out of hand would be contained without a powerful central government.

A quote directly from the article, and I can only say, I suppose we are seeing that. Blood feuds, mass killings and kidnappings, rape, ...

This entire source article could only have been written with the sturdiest and most carefully constructed horse-blinders.

dfps11• 8 years ago

You might compare the violence with that in a very strict society, like the Soviet Union, or with any other country, whether Latin American countries lately, many African nation with various governments, or certain parts of North America (Dade might be a forerunner), though, so is the reason for violence in Somalia attributable to their form of law?

peterwwillis3• 8 years ago

From the historical perspective of great dynasties of civilized societies, central government is basically a byproduct of power struggle. One powerful group wants to impose their power on everyone else, or perhaps the whole society wants to impose the collective will on everyone else, so they create a central government. When that doesn't happen, you get nations which are tied together by common bonds, but they decide matters by convening councils and mutual agreement and compromise, and don't attempt to force their will. But all are usually happy to force their will on other nations.

Generally speaking, cultures that have strict observances of Gods that require things of their peoples are a lot more into imposing their will on others. Every society collectively agrees to buy into the way that society works, because the implicit threat is that if you don't buy into it, your neighbor will kill you.

pitaj• 8 years ago

Here are some better articles about Somalia in the same vein as this one, which is sub-par.

[0] https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it

[1] https://mises.org/library/anarchy-somalia

[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12278628

dfps11• 8 years ago

Thanks for these links.

The Stateless article is a good book report. One nice phrase from it: "Thus while a judge may form his own principles, his customers will decide his competence as a judge."

One error to be aware of is in the following paragraph. Successful plaintiffs are not free to resort to self-help to enforce payments. Self-help, as I understand it through van Notten, is a last ditch measure when no justice is agreeable. Successful rulings are enforced by an individual's own jilib, according to van Notten.

The Law of the Somalis, a Nation Successful Without Any Central Government

Related Stories