This liberal video is making it's way about the interwebz. Supposedly it's a message to the Tea Party encouraging them to move to the "Libertarian Paradise" of Somalia which no longer has a centralized government. I didn't realize that the Tea Party was composed of anarchists who wanted to abolish the State. Perhaps this is because so many Tea Partiers still want Medicare, Social Security, police, war and such. But liberals cannot be bothered with such philosophical subtleties. Since Tea Partiers do not subscribe to the liberal brand of collectivism/socialism, they are enemies and must be vanquished.
The PSA argues that Somalia has not had a government since 1991. However, this statement is not accurate. Somalia has not had a State, i.e., a monopoly provider of law and protection services, since 1991. (See Albert J. Nock's Our Enemy, the State for discussion of the difference between government and State. Somalia has government. As Benjamin Powell writes:
Somali law is based on custom interpreted and enforced by decentralized clan networks. The Somali customary law, Xeer, has existed since pre-colonial times and continued to operate under colonial rule. The Somali nation-state tried to replace the Xeer with government legislation and enforcement. However, in rural areas and border regions where the Somali government lacked firm control, people continued to apply the common law. When the Somali state collapsed, much of the population returned to their traditional legal system.
The Xeer outlaws homicide, assault, torture, battery, rape, accidental wounding, kidnapping, abduction, robbery, burglary, theft, arson, extortion, fraud, and property damage. The legal system focuses on the restitution of victims not the punishment of criminals. For violations of the law, maximum compensation to victims is specified in camels (though payment can be made in equivalent monetary value). Typical compensation to the family of a murder victim is 100 camels for a man and 50 for a woman; an animal thief usually must return two animals for every one he stole.
Clan elders chosen on the basis of their knowledge of the law judge cases. The elders cannot create the law. They only interpret the community customs. Elders who make decisions that deviate from community norms are not consulted in future cases. When a dispute arises between two members of different clans, their clan elders must reach a compromise. If they are unable to do so they appoint an elder from another clan to settle the dispute.
What Somalia lacks is an entity that is an ultimate judge of conflict including conflicts involving itself and can unilaterally decide the price of its judgment through taxation. However, the country does have law and it does have people who interpret and apply the law. The country has a system to resolve disputes and there is no monopoly judge. But I suspect that liberals have better things to do than study and understand such minute differences between States and governments.
Moreover, what radicals have pointed out regarding Somalia is that the country is doing better economically relative to its neighbors because it does not have a centralized State. Powell points this out in his article as does Peter T. Leeson in his essay "Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse" (PDF). For a recent example of a stateless society outperforming a neighboring society under a State see this New York Times article and John Stossel's commentary.
Once again understanding these conclusions requires an amount of disinterested research and study which I suspect many liberals are incapable of. I suspect this because I am convinced that while many liberals are Hobbesian, the are less concerned with the State as ultimate judge of conflict whose purpose is to end incessant fighting and more concerned that there is an entity extant that can force people live as they, liberals, want them to live. They would much prefer to fight with conservatives to be the "who" rather than the "whom". A stateless society would mean that liberals would have to actually convince people with reason and rhetoric rather than fight for political control and force people at gunpoint. Making convincing arguments that persuade people to act as you wishes takes more energy than getting "your man" elected in office and (hoping) that he will force people to act as you wish. This is why we cannot build a libertarian utopia here in the U.S.-you liberals (and conservatives for that matter) won't let us. We actually tried to do this in New Hampshire, but then the liberals, fed up with socialist Massachusetts, began moving there and voting for the same socialist policies they ostensibly left Massachusetts for.
But when I hear this line escape the lips or the pen of some liberal I am quite tempted to respond:
Why don't you move! Doesn't your utopia already exist in Europe? Doesn't England have universal health care? Doesn't Germany ban homeschooling which you feel is a threat to "education"? Doesn't France have 6-week vacations and 35-hour work weeks all mandated by law? Isn't Sweden your ideal place? How about Canada? Not only does that country have universal health care, but speech codes to make sure that the minorities you claim to protect are not "harmed" by insensitive speech. Rather than try to make this country into Europe or Canada, why don't you move to one of your utopias? I'll help you pack.
Comments