Truth be told, "Freedom", as defined as: n. The condition of being free of restraints. n. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Would fit squarely under level 2 "Safety" needs in Maslow's hierarchy. Therefore "Live Free or Die" would essentially translate as "Level 2 Needs fulfilled, or Deny me my Level 1 needs".

Basically, hardcore libertarians feel that nothing should keep them from fulfilling their physiological needs, and the only thing that might would be government force. if Government force is stopping your family from eating (See: bread lines in Russia during CCCP), You're already unable to meet your safety needs, which will naturally lead to revolt/rebellion.

Your analysis indicates that you're stuck on the dimension of individuality vs collectivism whereby libertarian solutions would somehow be inferior to socialist ones.

The real problems in Somalia lie along dimensions of corruption and violence. The biggest gains that they could make as a society would be to reduce the value of corruption and violence as a means to an end. Possibly that reduction comes in the form of free markets that create a vibrant economy that their people become incentivized to protect. Possibly, some more socialist democratic processes could take hold that appeals to their cultural tendencies to help one another. Probably some mixture of those forces could help to create a new Somalian society.

I'm saying that if you want people to agree with your philosophy, whatever it is, you have to make it relevant to them. Frik seemed to think that Somalians should give up day-to-day security, including financial and physical safety, in order to protect themselves from hypothetical monitoring by a government that currently can't even provide basic law enforcement. In the environment Frik lives in, government monitoring is a reality and frequent robbery is not, and he naively assumes that his priorities can be applied everywhere unchanged.