Vacation in unregulated Somalia. The Libertarian paradise.

Somalia is what happens when you make government as powerless as right-libertarians want to make it. Private armies, gangs, warlords, etc. take over. And if you think the government is oppressive, try living under the Corleone family.

Talk about a bullshit headline.

In fact, I nomitate this for bullshite headline of the year.

According to what you write in the nooner Ron, Somalia is such a Libertarian paradise, that Libertarians don't want to live there. Yeah, that is very logical.

MEMBER2586

Somalia's what a country with little government looks like. A real libertarian Nirvana, eh?

Libertarians want enough government so that people are protected by others initiating force or fraud against them. That is the core function of government, to provide law enforcement, a court system to try suspected bad and settele contract disputes, and a prison system to put convicted bad guys away (no, it should not be privatized). Everything else government does it not a core function. Somalia is a failed state because it doesn't even do the basics right, in other words, it fails to fulfill it's core function.

Conclusion: Somalia is not a Libertarian paradise, it is a failed state.

Vacation in unregulated Somalia. The Libertarian paradise.
#1 | Posted by Ron_Karate

Somalia libertarian? Duh!

There is no liberty when your person and property aren't safe.

I award Ron with the Orwell Prize for the day.

Somalia's what a country with little government looks like. A real libertarian Nirvana, eh?

He'll have to share it with AU.

Right-libertarians think they can shrink government to just the right size that can maintain order, but not be overwhelmed by private interests. It is a fantasy that has no historical evidence to support it.

He'll have to share it with AU.

Progressives say they are all about sharing. We'll see.

There is no liberty when your person and property aren't safe.

That is the one and only goal of government, to protect rights and property. Your person and property can be at risk in a failed state like Somalia, or in the U.S. with a hostile government that doesn't recognize the limitations placed on it by the Constititution and Bill of Rights.

"That is the one and only goal of government, to protect rights and property."

Says who? You?

#8

If you hate Big Business, then you should work to reduce the size of government, both go hand in hand.

How many large corporations are headquartered in Somalia? How many large corporations would want to invest in Somalia given it's instability?

Says who? You?

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2010-03-07 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Was sadi when the USSR came crubling down since that is the type of government he likes.

Right-libertarians think they can shrink government to just the right size that can maintain order, but not be overwhelmed by private interests. It is a fantasy that has no historical evidence to support it.
#8 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Another straw man from the hay farmer. Liberty is a principle to live by as a moral standard. Just like being against murder doesn't mean one has to expect a society without murder.

"Libertarians want enough government so that people are protected by others initiating force or fraud against them"

lol. Them right-libertarian cliches are a hoot.

"Initiation of force" is the cardinal sin in propertarian society, carefully defined to encompass anything propertarians oppose. For example, if Libertarians hold to this fundamental principle, then why do they not return the land their ancestors stole from the American Indians? There are fewer purer examples of initiation of force than the European conquest of the New World!

Ray wants enough govt to protect him but not enough to impede him from screwing over folks in his quest for wealth.

Somalia is a dream come true for people like RIR. Nobody to stop him and his illicit activities from becoming successful.

"Initiation of force" is the cardinal sin in propertarian society, carefully defined to encompass anything propertarians oppose. For example, if Libertarians hold to this fundamental principle, then why do they not return the land their ancestors stole from the American Indians? There are fewer purer examples of initiation of force than the European conquest of the New World!

WTF is that? How stupid!

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2010-03-07 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Was sadi when the USSR came crubling down since that is the type of government he likes.

#12 | Posted by member2586

You are stupid. I was ecstatic when the Wall fell and the USSR collapsed. I'm always in favor of people rising up and overthrowing authoritarian systems, dumbass.

You are stupid. I was ecstatic when the Wall fell and the USSR collapsed. I'm always in favor of people rising up and overthrowing authoritarian systems, dumbass.

But that's what your loved socialism is, an authoritarian system.

"But that's what your loved socialism is, an authoritarian system."

I'm not in favor of any socialism/anarchism/or any other -ism that isn't democratic and doesn't recognize the usual rights, e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. Wrong again, Ray.

I'm not in favor of any socialism/anarchism/or any other -ism that isn't democratic and doesn't recognize the usual rights, e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. Wrong again, Ray.

You left out property rights. Authoritarian and anarchistic social systems have little respect for property rights. No viable economic system can survive without property rights. They don't mind giving you freedom to criticize. It creates an illusion you're free.

I think Nulli is still upset that Bob Barr banged his girlfriend.

"You left out property rights. "

I'm all in favor of property rights, Ray. Everyone should be able to own their own home. What's the problem? Now being able to monopolize the resources of the planet is another thing.

I'm all in favor of property rights, Ray. Everyone should be able to own their own home. What's the problem? Now being able to monopolize the resources of the planet is another thing.

You're playing games. Property rights include business ownership rights.

Now being able to monopolize the resources of the planet is another thing.

That's something the State excels at through force.

"Property rights include business ownership rights."

I don't have anything against small business, Ray. I do have a problem with monopolies and oligopolies, which, in theory, should also bother "free-market" types like you, but apparently doesn't.

I bet I support small-business capitalism, i.e., real capitalism, better than you, Ray. I go out of my way to shop at small independents than at Walmart like you.

"That's something the State excels at through force."

Bla bla bla. You're still going to pay taxes in your rightwing libertopia, Ray. You'll just be handing it over to the neighborhood good fella.

Jeeze...

Old news....and sadly, incorrect. Is he reporting on Gadahn's capture as well?

As pointed out, Libertarians value personal property and protection of same. Piracy doesn't respect that.

I don't have anything against small business, Ray. I do have a problem with monopolies and oligopolies, which, in theory, should also bother "free-market" types like you, but apparently doesn't.

Then start with the mother of all those lesser monopolies: the federal government. Your opposition to authoritarianism is selective.

Bla bla bla. You're still going to pay taxes in your rightwing libertopia, Ray. You'll just be handing it over to the neighborhood good fella.

You're making me repeat myself. I told you liberty is a principle that I try to maximize in my personal life as much as I practically can. I don't believe in utopias.

Wow, who knew the only two choices were "submit totally to an increasingly oppressive federal government" or Somalia?

Kinda sounds like "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists"...

But that's what your loved socialism is, an authoritarian system.

Somebody needs to learn the difference between socialism and social democracy, the form of government functioning in most western countries. Care to name which western liberal democracies are "authoritarian"?That includes state-run medicare, social welfare and other progressive ideas. It's only the pantwetting reactionaries who think otherwise. Interestingly, they are the same ones who support privatization of members "core" government functions like prisons, police and the military, corporate welfare and the military-industrial complex.

Somebody needs to learn the difference between socialism and social democracy, the form of government functioning in most western countries.

Social democracy is a means towards full socialism. Every time Congress pass a law, every time bureaucracies issue a new regulation, every time the president signs an executive order, every time the Supreme Court ignores the Constitution, it is one more step towards full socialism or some version of it.

Care to name which western liberal democracies are "authoritarian"?That includes state-run medicare, social welfare and other progressive ideas.

That's if you regard creeping statism as progressive. Political power has a long history of being dangerous and destructive. Regressives never learn.

Journalist Sites misses the whole point. To have Libertarianism you must first have an intelligent non-muslim populice.

Nulli, et al have it wrong again.

Libertarianism is, in general, about small government, but mostly about a small FEDERAL government. I think most of us libertarians would be content with a tiny fed govt and then we'd work out what we need to at the state/community level. God know Jefferson believed in that, right Nulli??

Or is your reading of the federalist papers similar to interpretive dance?

Again I will say that lumping all libertarians as anarchists is exactly the same as calling all Libs communist and all Reps Statist. It's intellectually dishonest.

"Libertarians want enough government to prevent the use of force or fraud against them...."

But not enough government to prevent millions of it's own citizens from starving. Libertarians want just enough social order to be able to look down on some other group of people as being "lazy".

"It's intellectualy dishonest..."

Those libertarians who ARE anarchists are pretty frightening dudes.

It's interesting to me that that one libertarian I interacted with recently never considered not allowing the Irish to have some of the food they produced a use of force.

Property rights first, last, and foremost. And Irish didn't own that food. Furthermore, they were "lazy" for asking for some.

Those libertarians who ARE anarchists are pretty frightening dudes.

And so are the Libs that are socialist and the reps that are statist! Very few libertarians are anarchist and that is not what it is all about..

But not enough government to prevent millions of it's own citizens from starving. Libertarians want just enough social order to be able to look down on some other group of people as being "lazy".

And your parties have thrown billions of dollars from all of us at the problem and the homeless problem was cured, right? How much have you personally given to help anyone?? Seriously, let's put it on the record and see who is doing more to help - Dems, Reps or Libertarians. Statistics already show that Dems on averagoe make more than their Republican counterparts, yet give less..

JSSPRAGUE---

You offer merely one more excuse for famine and genocide. You're far from the first person of your political persuasion to do so. Until you start to look at such things, you folks are going to be lepers.

"There but for the Grace of God go I...."

Is nothing libertarians of a certain sort ever think might be true. That's interesting.

Sorry Zed, but I really didn't understand your post.

And how much, and to whom did you give last year?? As a percentage of your income would be even more relevant.

And Zed, who did you make your contributions to? If it was oraganizations like Goodwill and the Red Cross, then you did very little to help since about 80% of it goes to overhead for their wasteful practices and CEO salaries/bonuses.

Alright, well I'm going to bed, but what a "conversation" lacking of political prejudices for once. (Insert sarcasm) I know I asked the tough questions and I am not surprised they went unaswered.

Right-libertarians think they can shrink government to just the right size that can maintain order, but not be overwhelmed by private interests. It is a fantasy that has no historical evidence to support it.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian

The US was there at one time but the socalists soon changed that.

This entire article and most of the thread are one big strawman. Misrepresenting the beliefs of others is not as impressive as many of you seem to believe it is. In fact, it is rather idiotic.

I didn't see one mention of libertarianism in that article. Please quit posting false headlines meant to smear people.

And as many posters have already stated, Somalia is not libertarian at all. Please inform yourself about it before regurgitating nonsense.

The true Libertarian believes "your right to punch ends at my face," not "punch me and I will punch you back." There is a system in place under true Libertarianism to protect my face without stopping your right to punch.

The true Libertarian believes "your right to punch ends at my face," not "punch me and I will punch you back." There is a system in place under true Libertarianism to protect my face without stopping your right to punch.
#47 | Posted by kanrei

Actually, 'an eye for an eye' is embedded in the Bible.

Libertarianism doesn't mean free to agress; it means to be free FROM agression.

"Libertarianism doesn't mean free to agress; it means to be free FROM agression."

Libertarianism doesn't mean free to agress; it means to be free FROM agression from government, but not from private actors.

There, fixed that for you.

Dan, you couldn't fix a leaky toilet in a desert.

Libertarians, in general, are more live and let live than any other group.

Somalia is an example of anarchy.

Somalia is no more the libertarian's ideal than Russia is a liberal's ideal. Typical strawman bullshit that morons like Null Set buy hook, line and sinker.

"Somalia is not more libertarian than Russia's liberal idea...."

There are some libertarians, I assume a majority, who have great ideas.

There are others who sincerely see no downside to millions of their own countrymen starving to death. They be batshit.

Well this article incorrectly assumes that Libertarian is a new term for Anarchist. Somolia is a Anarchist state. Libertarians believe in the maximum possible personal libery WHILE STILL under the leadreship/laws of a duely elected Government.

Liberty*

Libertarians= Anarchist with money.

lol!

This is as retarded as a teabagger calling Obama a "communist."

Well I think Obama is really just a Commie Scum Bag!!!!!

oh sorry live or die, didnt see that.......