From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Somalia, Liberatarian State
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:32:38 GMT

In article lihvrcINNngg@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak) writes:
>In article Gpx@wrs.com, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
>> 
>> Somalia has no guarantees for the protection of individual rights.
>
>In the liberatarian model, such protections would be provided by a
>privately-funded police or military. The local power-mongers simply
>acquired guns and funded their own operations through extortion.

Funding their own operations is not the same thing as guaranteeing the
protection of individual rights.  What the local power-mongers have
done isn't all that different from what the US government has done,
really.  The US government just doesn't have any local competition...

>The point I am making is that the basis of liberatarianism, that is
>the assumptions of liberatarianism, can be analyzed in the Somalian
>situation. Anarchy is an excellent case in which to study the assumptions
>of any political theory, even our own dem/rep thoeries. Do you deny this?

Yes.  Anarchy is a political theory unto itself, although an argument
could be made for anarchy being an extreme case of a particular
political situation(s) taken to an extreme.

>> >Does Somalia prove that the assumptions upon which liberaterianism is
>> >based are not valid?
>> 
>> Not even.
>
>I guess a two-word response constitues a flame.

Not at all.  You asked a yes/no question, I answered it.

>I wish someone would consider my argument more carefully and tell me
>why I am wrong.

Your argument is incorrect because your first assumption is* that
anarchy and libertarianism are nearly identical.  That is simply not
true.

>I think that the anarchy in Somalia proves answers to
>some basic questions about individual freedom and society's reaction to
>it.

The anarchy in Somalia is immediately due to a number of
militarily-strong groups competing for power.  The events that
strengthened these groups have been outlined in previous articles in
similar threads, but basically involved the cold war powers "investing"
in the various groups.  See those previous articles for details.

>One of those questions is 'Is liberaterianism only possible as a
>reaction to our case, as an advanced, over-governed society'?

My answer is no, because I believe that a government could be based on
libertarian principles from the outset, much like America was.

>The answer may well be yes and not damage the principles of the
>Liberatarian party. Liberatarianism reamains the best option in the
>USA.

Agreed.

>But not internationally.

Why not?

>Until otherwise proven, I'll continue to contend that liberatarianism
>is culturally-based.

The word "prove" is fairly meaningless in a political context, isn't it?

gak

*I think.

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------| Monday is a work day
Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| Tuesday's much the same
ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--| Wednesday comes and goes away
Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------| Thursday's back again

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian