Anarcho-capitalism in the Real World

After the barrage of quotes from armchair philosophers and interminable debates on abstract political theory, I decided to see if there was anything gleanable from the net that provided a real world example of anarcho-capitalism in action, right now. Found one:

Living in Somalia's anarchy

Choice passages:

Somalia is the only country in the world where there is no government.

"Somalia is a pure free market," one diplomat told me.

Seems to fit the bill...

"...you pass seven checkpoints, each run by a different militia. At each of these "border crossings" all passenger vehicles and goods lorries must pay an "entry fee"...

So while there are no taxmen, there appear to be a lot of highwaymen.

We all seem to enjoy criticising our governments but life in Somalia shows the alternative is far worse, as Hobbes wrote 350 years ago.

So how's business in Somalia? Quite good, if you don't mind getting killed tomorrow. If you click the related link on the page ("Business without Rules"), you'll see this...

In Kenya, we have to pay customs duties and taxes which are very expensive. In Somalia, we just have to pay a "security tax" to the militiamen. This means goods are cheaper there. A TV which costs $135 in Kenya is $90 in Somalia.

But it is better to pay tax and have security. If there is no security, there is no life.

Ahhh... but they are FREE!!! :-)
______________________

From the CIA World Factbook (2004)

GDP per capita (PPP): US$600 (est.)
Infant mortality rate: 116.7 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy: 48.09 years

It need not be said that a lot of countries do far better than this.

______________________

Cross-threading joke (to lower blood pressure):

What do you get when you cross an Intelligent Designer and an Anarchist?

Ted Kaczynski

Post 1

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 8:27pm

Great post. At long last we know that anarchism is no longer a "floating abstraction," but can point to a real-world "referent."

Post 2

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 10:39pm

Very nice, num++

I don't even mind moving the thread for that.

Are there any pure free market countries with no government out there, boys, that are successful?

Michael

Post 3

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 11:00pm

I remember seeing a presentation about the potential for anarcho-Capitalism in Somalia at ISIL's conference in the Summer of 2000. I also remember one of the presenters, Jim Davidson, was extremely enthusiastic about Business prospects in the area and wanted fellow libertarians to invest their money. I recall having a discussion with this guy. He was *VERY* much opposed to western cultural imperialism and expressed this view forcefully. We were coming at liberty from entirely different positions even though he claimed Ayn Rand as a major influence. According to him, you didn't need all the cultural prerequisites - or Government. It wasn't until later that I realized that he wasn't really for a free society at all.

Post 4

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 4:38am

1. The BBC is, of course, a government agency, so there is that. (Put "Ayn Rand" in the BBC search window and try not to be underwhelmed by the four hits.)

2. Put "arbitration" in Google and follow the first ten links.

3. Put "private security" in Google and follow the first ten links.

People have two ways of doing things, power and market. Ford and GM have private security forces. Why are they not at war? Do not claim that the USA supresses them from warfare. Ford and GM get their share of government money. The government does whatever they want. Yet, was WWII caused by Ford's being angry at Opel for signing on with GM? No. Why not? Because Henry Ford was a great humanitarian? No. Because there is no real profit in warfare -- which is why anarcho-capitalism is not a "theory" but a description of fact.

How many BBC stories about wars between governments would it take to convince anyone with a truly open mind that governments cause wars?

Post 5

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 6:10am

"Are there any pure free market countries with no government out there, boys, that are successful?"

No. It's pretty easy to point out that there are no real-world examples of someone's Utopia - be it Ancapistan or Galtsgulchbourg.

Post 6

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 1:06pm

Subject: Idealizing Anarchistan
To: Fellow Libertarian Intellectuals

Well, we're having a bit of trouble convincing people that the mafia won't take over and intimidate its opponents once we get rid of government with its detectives and FBI and police. Or that blackmail with nukes won't occur once we get rid of the military. Or that terrorists won't strike once we abolish the CIA.

So how 'bout this? Let's claim that there are -numerous- examples where it has been tried and worked. We'll have to be careful, though, since there really aren't any.

Let's scour the planet and come up with the last place on earth...oh...Somalia. And let's change the subject when anyone who actually reads up on the country can see that fear, intimidation, and native mafias and warlords have sprung up to fill the vacuum. Besides, having an annual income of $600 and a life expectancy of 48 isn't really relevant to the issue of human flourishing.

Can't find anything else today or in the last half a millennium since advanced industrial societies developed? Let's talk up partial anarchy, the "Wild West" when the early settlers got there before the U.S. marshals and the cavalry and the circuit riding judge had arrived. And let's ignore the range wars, the property and land disputes between Indians and settlers, the water wars and timber wars, the claim jumping, the fact that the quick on the draw gunslingers shoot down innocent people for stealing their girl or in a bar fight and having gotten away with it do it again. We'll claim that the west really wasn't so wild; it was misnamed. Another conspiracy by those damned historians: marxists, every one of them.

We'll just talk about the fact there were no taxes and how the early settlers instantly set up thriving industries and infrastructure and commerce and wealthy corporations... Oops, they didn't do that until AFTER the law arrived to squash the predators? That was in the more ordered, longer-settled areas?

...Well, Never Mind.

And we won't talk about the need to be quick on the draw and well-armed and threatening to hold onto what was yours. We'll talk of these as exceptions, ignoring the fact that the -potential- for sudden death or theft makes life a lot less worth living.

If that doesn't work, here's our third case: We'll go back as far as possible in history where no one fully knows all the details of what happened because it was the Dark Ages and there were fewer records or they are more 'literary' and there is more room to play. We'll talk fuzzily about law merchants and ignore the predators and the strife and aristocratic feudal lords controlling the serfs and the constant battles and invasions and living in fear. And the tolls along every river. Let's go to medieval Ireland. Nope, not far enough or an obscure enough backwater. Ah! Medieval ICEland! Private law. We'll pose as scholars who "know everything" about these societies based on a creative reading of a few scraps.

Then we'll ignore the fact that tribal law and custom is a violation or intimidation of the freedom to do anything that is not traditional or customary. That people can be killed if they are abrasive or unpopular. That tribal societies or 'clans' are the most stultifying and unprogressive and change-resistant and primitive of systems. And that it is easy to not need massive government if you are tiny, primitive, and on an island or small community where you can't get away easily or everyone knows everyone.

This oughta' work because no one is going to check the niggling little details.

Signed,

Murray the Genius

PS, of course the common sense public is gonna' think we're nuts and the plausibility of libertarianism will decrease because of the seeming far-fetched kookiness and otherworldly irrelevance of anarchist purism.

But who cares about them. They are all unwashed follow-the-fuhrer scum anyway.

[PPS, do not show this letter to anyone. This is a private strategy memorandum for brilliant intellectuals only. ]

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/10, 6:42pm)

Post 7

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 4:24pm

Thanks for the compliments Robert B. and MSK.

MSK, you asked for a successful example, I have found none. However if you redefine 'successful', there's hope [more on this below].

Aaron... Ancapistan? LOL! That one's inspired.

Michael M., other than this "BBC = conspiracy" angle you're fishing for, I could not parse your post. It's all argumentum ex non aliquid congruentem dicandus posset * to me.

Philip C., you have expressed my befuddlement over the constant reality evasion that has gone on better than I could. Your ability to 'channel' their argument is eerie. Perhaps I should address this to "Murray the Reincarnated" instead.
_________________________

If you search Google for "Somalia Anarchy" (without the quotes), you get ~73,800 hits. The BBC article floats to the top, but there are tons of other sources. Somalia seems to be the world's unwitting lab rat in anarcho-capitalism. If you want a more libertarian take, read Somalia and the theory of anarchy from Marginal Revolution (an excellent blog, btw).

Wikipedia, in their page on Anarcho-capitalism, links to Somalia twice, one to a related BBC story, another to a World Bank report. Both stories put a more "positive" light on Somalia, though the World Bank still felt obligated to point out that the illiteracy rate is 81%. Imagine that, 4 out of every 5 people can't read or write. So how will these people undertake "voluntary contractual agreements"? Voice recorders?

There are stories you might encounter [if you persist] that tell of the "success" of telecom firms in Somalia. Just to give you an idea of what kind of service you should expect:

Attempts by IRIN [humanitarian news agency] to reach Baidoa, the headquarters of the SRRC [militia group], for comment were unsuccessful, due to a telecommunications blackout.

Telecommunications in the town of Baidoa, 240 km northwest of Mogadishu, had been cut off from the rest of Somalia since Monday afternoon, fuelling speculation over military movements in the region, observers said.

This is from UNSomalia.net (2002 news archive). A novel way to put someone on hold, I may add.
_________________________

*[argument from not being able to say anything coherent]

Post 8

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:16pm

Philip-

Good memo, I think you win the circle jerk.

num++-

I'd thought 'Ancapistan' was original, but Googling the term just now I found 2360 hits. Philip's 'Anarchistan' gets 5520. Maybe there really isn't anything new under the sun.

Post 9

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:29pm

Don't be disheartened. That's just the pure free-market at work.

Post 10

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 6:20pm

Too funny guys. Way too funny. And you guys clearly have way too much time on your hands.
But keep it up. This is the best entertainment I've had for some time.
(How pathetic is that?)

Post 11

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 6:32pm

Philip said:

"PS, of course the common sense public is gonna' think we're nuts and the plausibility of libertarianism will decrease because of the seeming far-fetched kookiness and otherworldly irrelevance of anarchist purism."

Philip, you shouldn't pin your hopes on the "common sense public" (oh, dear) distinguishing between anarcho-capitalists and the slightly more sane minarchist-constitutionalist libertarians such as "us".

To your average Joe the severely limited governmental structure of libertarian society has about the same "far-fetched kookiness and otherwordly irrelevance" as the Michael Jackson trial. Perhaps more.

For a laugh, go out on the street and ask people at random if they think it would be a really spiffing idea to reduce government, ALL government, down to it's core functions of police, courts and defense; no welfare, no public hospitals, no public schools, no antitrust law; and that the last vestiges of said government should be funded by voluntary means... then ask some more people if they'd like to come for a ride to Mars in your flying saucer.

You'll get the same looks. Either way, you'll be the kook.

While you may disagree with Rothbard regarding his anarchist views (as I do) where is the remaining "kookiness" in his vast written corpus on libertarianism?

My point is that it's not only irrational but counterproductive to dismiss a close intellectual ally on the basis of non-essentials. The left wingers have realised that for decades. That's why they rule the modern world.

Ross Elliot

Post 12

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 7:43pm

Why do its detractors fail to realize that anarcho-capitalism is a type of capitalism and is therefore most fundamentally based on a profound respect for private property? How much respect for private property is there in Somalia?

Why do the detractors of anarcho-capitalism insist on putting the cart before the horse? You don't create freedom by instituting a-c but rather a fully free society will turn out to be a-c.

The detractors of anarcho-capitalism are constantly arguing against straw men of their own creation. I choose simply to marvel and laugh at their confusion rather than to waste my time defending against their windmill tilting.

Post 13

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 8:25pm

This may fall on deaf ears, but I have learned over many years that the general public
often does have great respect for reason, individualism, and small government, albeit
not in so extreme or consistent a form as we would wish.

They are wildly inconsistent, and probably see the task of rolling back big government as
a pipe dream. But they wouldn't necessarily be all that against it. Witness the progress of the last 35
years. Anyone who has lived long enough to be aware of what things were like in 1970 and now
can readily see the difference in a variety of concrete ways.

Maybe some of you have lived too long in major cities like LA NY, SF, etc.
I've lived in those, and lots of other places and I have a pretty good base of evidence for what
people are like around the U.S.

Post 14

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 8:53pm

"The detractors of anarcho-capitalism are constantly arguing against straw men of their own creation. I choose simply to marvel and laugh at their confusion rather than to waste my time defending against their windmill tilting."

Sane plan.

I admit in a way I find either side attacking the other's Utopian vision entertaining; I really follow these threads though with the (possibly futile) hope that either side can point out something constructive about their side - a real existing or historical example, a solid action plan for getting to their ideal, etc. - instead of the trivial destructive task of attacking their opponents' goal as infeasible.

Post 15

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 9:14pm

Rick,

How much respect for private property is there in Somalia?

That's the million dollar question. You see, there is nothing wrong with trying to base a society on a profound respect for private property and individual rights.

The problem is that there are always a bunch of people around who want to bonk you on the head and shoot you or whatever and take your stuff from you. That's what they do. That is not a very heroic vision of what man is in the raw, but there it is.

And there they are. Over there in Somalia. Doing just that.

Some call this fact reality.

They even try to take this fact into account (among other facts) on creating a social structure.

Man is good too, but a government properly exists to restrict those head bonkers and thieves. Sort of out of a profound respect for private property and individual rights.

But, getting back to our potential society based only on a profound respect for private property and individual rights, there is one right under your very nose. It is called the United States of America - and just look at the difference between the USA and Somalia.

To reuse your question a little differently, "How much respect for private property is there in the USA?"

Well look and see how much private property there is all around you. Then look at Somalia.

Now that is the proper context for discussing improvements, even theoretical ones, to our system. To be absolutely clear, I mean seeing how much respect there is in addition to how much there isn't. From there we can work on getting the government smaller, redefining the abusive areas, changing the tax structure and so forth. I will even be one of those to help work for these things from that perspective.

But that has not been the context I have seen out of anarcho-capitalists. They want to piss on our President and institutions and are even arguing about Abraham Lincoln of all things. They posture as badass pioneer freedom fighters and simply pretend that this wonderful society of ours is nothing but trash.

Well, you may not like it, Rick, (I know they sure don't) but Somalia is the only viable alternative to what happens without the Abraham Lincolns of our world to hold stuff together. Just look if you don't believe. It is a no-brainer.

All these badass pioneer freedom fighters have nothing of their own in reality to show - just theory - and they bitch to the high heavens about how bad it all is. Well it is not bad at all. It is very, very good. I have seen the bad with my own eyes - and I did not even get close to anything as bad as Somalia.

We must build on what we have (even on ole Honest Abe) in order to make the good things even better. Not destroy the good.

Exposing that sick intention of destroying the good in such an irrefutable manner, by the way, is what all the merriment is about around here. Not any great love of Big Brother.

Michael

Post 16

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 11:45pm

Quoth Philip Coates:

"Can't find anything else today or in the last half a millennium since advanced industrial societies developed? Let's talk up partial anarchy, the "Wild West" when the early settlers got there before the U.S. marshals and the cavalry and the circuit riding judge had arrived. And let's ignore the range wars, the property and land disputes between Indians and settlers, the water wars and timber wars, the claim jumping, the fact that the quick on the draw gunslingers shoot down innocent people for stealing their girl or in a bar fight and having gotten away with it do it again. We'll claim that the west really wasn't so wild; it was misnamed."

Actually, the "wild west" was, in fact, pretty wild -- just not as wild as thoroughly governed Boston, which had a higher per capita homicide rate than the US west of the Mississippi throughout the last half of the 19th century.

Tom Knapp

Post 17

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 11:57pm

Quoth Michael:

"To reuse your question a little differently, 'How much respect for private property is there in the USA?'"

Not much.

If you don't believe me, try telling your county government that your property is yours and that you don't intend to pay them rent ("property tax") any more, and see how long they respect your occupancy of it.

Or try telling your city government that no, you don't care to sell your house so that a road, parking garage, shopping mall or baseball stadium can be built on the lot.

Or try telling your zoning board that it's none of their damn business if you want to put up a day-glo purple privacy fence on one side of the lot and run a fast food franchise on the other.

My town of 773 residents has 500 pages of city ordinances dictating precisely what residents may and may not do with "their" property. One of those ordinances prescribes the number of holes per square inch my window screens must have -- and I can be cited, taken to court, fined and my property confiscated if I don't pay and "correct the violation." And here I thought they were, um, my windows. Silly me.

Fortunately, the city has a city marshal (who happens to be my significant other and whose campaign I managed against a referendum on eliminating the office in favor of an appointed "compliance officer") who manages to keep the worst of the bullshit from raining down on the backs of the population. But Libertarians aren't usually elected to such offices.

Tom Knapp

Post 18

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:06am

[Tom] "thoroughly governed Boston, which had a higher per capita homicide rate than the US west of the Mississippi throughout the last half of the 19th century."

Let me see, how do I support my argument. Oh yes, if I scan fifty or eighty cities, I'm sure I can find one which is a statistical anomaly... No, not New York. Not Ben Franklin's City of Brotherly Love: too damned peaceful. Not Miami. Not Cleveland. Ah there we go. Boston with those damned Irish.

Now I've proven the absurd conclusion that thorough policing produces more crime than anarchy in which people are having duels, shootouts, and range wars.

That was easy.

Next I'll prove that there is life on Pluto.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/11, 12:10am)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/11, 12:30am)

Post 19

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:42am