People actually argue that Somalia is better than it was back when it had a functioning government? Have they talked to anyone who grew up or lived through that? Nobody I've talked to from Somalia (I grew up in Minneapolis, a good chunk of my classmates from elementary and uni were Somali), nobody thinks it was a good change. The amount of death and fear is just staggering.

That article reads a little tone deaf, a lot of the data ignores an entire 10 year period of total fucking chaos.

It is very common for foreigners to hate their homeland. People who move from Kuba tend to say it sucks. I moved from America to Prague and I tell everyone that America sucks. My Russian friends say Russia sucks. The Ukrainians I know say Ukraine sucks. The Kyrgyzstanies I know say Kyrgyzstan sucks.

I live among foreigners, and the only ones that I've met that actually like their home country are rich ones from totalitarian regimes who somehow benefit from the regime. And as far as I can tell, public opinion of a regime among expats is strongly tied in both directions to how that regime effects them and their families financially, though even well off people such as myself, who have chosen to move away, often find it in their hearts to hate their home country.

The rich Saudis who come to Prague to study all thing Saudi Arabia is heaven on earth. The Russian who's family lost everything in 1998 [1] think that Putin should be hung from a lamp post with his own intestines.

I think that there is basically no knowledge to be gained from talking to expats about their home countries. After-all 75% of Turks in Belgium voted for totalitarian dictatorship at home [2].

[1] https://economics.rabobank.com/publications/2013/september/t... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_constitutional_referen...

>It is very common for foreigners to hate their homeland. People who move from Kuba tend to say it sucks. I moved from America to Prague and I tell everyone that America sucks. My Russian friends say Russia sucks. The Ukrainians I know say Ukraine sucks. The Kyrgyzstanies I know say Kyrgyzstan sucks

Exactly. It's also very typical for the average person someone on HN would mingle from that comes from other countries to say their country sucks (someone heavy on US culture, or who aspires to be a SV entrepreneur, etc is not the typical example of the average citizen of most countries). So just because someone knows people from a country, it doesn't mean their opinions represent what people from that country generally believe. Even ex-pats living in a foreign country tend to meet and mingle with quite specific demographics.

Cab drivers (and similar working class people) can often tell you more for the general sentiment in a country that people you naturally gravitate towards for making friends.

I had a similar objection to the various "arab spring" analysts, who take people with celebrated english-speaking blogs and twitter accounts (which by that fact already are a small minority in their country) as representative of the general sentiment etc. The guy who aspires to be an Egyptian blogger (and who participates in internet culture heavily) is probably more westernized and quite different than the average folk who might ask for heavier islamic laws etc. That's obvious, and still pundits are then surprised when such incidents (arab spring etc) take a turn for stricter regimes.

The person you're replying to didn't say that the citizens hated their homeland, he/she said that they preferred the older Somalia before it was state-less.

I'm not choosing either side of this discussion, simply clearing something up.

I don't think I would enjoy Cuba, Russia, Ukraine or Kyrgyzstan either.

I'm an expat from Sweden and I think Sweden is fantastic. It's just not the place for me at this point in my life. My friends from the U.S. are also very fair in their descriptions - there are things about their country they love, other things they hate.

You could just as well say that people still in their countries are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Almost every single one of my Somali peers loves Somalia, and would much rather go back, except they can't because of the fear of getting shot to death / starving.

Though sometimes this is half-jokingly in the context of "oh god it's -10F, why do people live here? I was tricked into coming here instead of Toronto".

While I don't agree with you per-se, there's a lot of inherent survivorship bias in your sample group.

If it's survivor bias, wouldn't that make the Somali classmates' opinions even more valid (their contemporaries being dead and all)?

Or did you intend to say selection bias?

Indeed.

It's kind of amazing that around here when someone says "yeah my Libertarian Paridise home-country is actually a shithole because people keep getting machete'd to death by roving gangs", someone else strokes their chin and thinks "hmm, I'm not sure I buy it, maybe there's a survivorship bias in there"

Survivor bias doesn't have to be based on literal survival.

But yes, in this case a more generic, selection, might be more appropriate.

Most of the metrics which he's looking at which improved under southern Somalia's anarcho-capitalism happened because of an increase in remittances. I don't think anybody's arguing that if Somalis didn't have legions of relatives abroad sending them money the humanitarian disaster would have been even worse.

The security implications of living with a system of competing warlords (or 'insurance companies', in ancap terminology) are also massively glossed over.

>The general claim seems to be that, yeah, stateless Somalia is way worse than high-functioning governments like the United States, but better than its neighbor states and better than it was before it became stateless.

I think you have to have a pretty strong a priori bias in favor of libertarianism to see that as a favorable statement. It also looks a bit self-serving, as there seem to be more Somali refugees in Kenya and Ethiopia than vice-versa.

>but better than its neighbor states and better than it was before it became stateless.

Not quite. While dysfunctional, Somali pre-anarchy was actually a great place to live.

Was it? It sure doesn't sound so, from what I've read about Barre's regime.

Functional hospitals, schools, universities, utilities and services. No crime, no warlords and no bandits. Economic stability and religious freedom.

Sure, Barre was a dictator, there was state sanctioned violence but for the average Somali on the street life was better in contrast to what followed which was:

Anarchy, random violence, war lords, checkpoint extortion, no services, no schools, no hospitals, no utilities, telecommunications were monopolized and the owners became defacto rulers who maintained anarchy to ensure tax-free profits. Massive increase in maternal mortality, reduction in life expectancy etc etc.

No one is saying Barre and the regime was great, but in comparison its pretty clear it was superior.

> Somalia is way worse than high-functioning governments like the United States

Yet my libertarian friends on Facebook all seem to want to tear the enitre government down.

At the risk of heading even further down this rabbit hole, I'd observe that there are very many significant differences between Somalia and the United States and that the existence of government is just one small part.

>I'd observe that there are very many significant differences between Somalia and the United States and that the existence of government is just one small part.

Could it be that "the existence of government" plays a big role in there being "very many significant differences between Somalia and the United States"?

Advanced countries can turn into rubble very fast if central government collapses -- grabs for power, civil wars, etc. Heck: https://searchingforsyria.org/en/how-can-i-help-syrian-refug...

If George Washington declared himself king, you might be looking today at 30% unemployment like some of the euros

Most of the European states that have monarchs (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands for instance) are doing alright, Spain is an outlier.

Let's not forget the UK.

I haven't forgotten the UK. It's where I come from. Unfortunately the saying: "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there." applies.

So I sometimes try to avoid mentioning it, and especially anything to do with Brit royalty.

I'm not sure what you're hinting at, but it sounds like the current state of UK politics has you exasperated.

Still, the UK is objectively doing alright these days, and objectively has a monarchy :)

What is the point you were trying to make?

"that the existence of government is just one small part."

I dont think you can qualify government as "just one small part". America would not be in the same place today without the decisions taken over time by its leaders. The same decisions would not be made under a different system of incentives for a leader like a monarchy/anarchy

It wouldn't be the same place, but it would still have enjoyed the highest natural-resource to population ration of any nation in history. Coal, Iron, Oil, Natural Gas, Gold, Wood, Water, Arible land, Uranium, Aluminium, Copper, all in great supply. The only comparable nations I can think of are Australia and Brazil, and their relative wealth is rather well explained by the overall wealth gradient nearing the equator:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_and_wealth

I keep reading that on HN, but after hanging around libertarians for a lifetime, I've never met a single one who said that. Usually Somalia comes up in the context of someone wanting a bigger government and dismissively telling libertarians "Why doncha just move to Somalia? Huh?"

Is that maybe what you're thinking of?

There is a difference between Anarchy and libertarianism. Most libertarians want less government, not no government.

But less government tends to lead to no government, or right back to where we are today depending on how strongly held one's beliefs are. Good luck finding two people to agree on what exactly should be cut on the road to "less".

From my perspective, the libertarian vision "less government" looks a lot like "no government." Just defense and contract enforcement, right? With ridiculous notions like environmental issues being handled by courts.

Less than what exactly?

What many libertarians want is decentralization. As much as possible. They probably want to get rid of all powerful Federal Government but local governments (as small as possible) and confederations are usually fine.

Speaking as someone from Poland/EU, which is heading in the opposite direction...

Many people seem to be complaining about certain absurd EU regulations that were forced upon us.

I, for one, am extremely happy - centralised government has saved us from a lot of absurd ideas the local policymakers had. Also, we have one extra level of courts, where you can go when your government breaks law.

Not to mention all the benefits for commerce and travel - knowing that other EU states have similar laws and standards helps a lot.

And now we will soon have "separate but equal" restrooms in Texas.

I find state rights advocates to be the worst™ people in the world. They advocate for state rights when it suits them. Absolutely hypocritical bunch.

We've decided as a nation that there are some rights and responsibilities that we have regardless of where we live within this nation. How many times do we have to fight for civil rights?

You're making the strange assumption that the federal government will always be be more in line with your own political views than your state government. After all, at the end of the day a hard-right state is less bad for liberals than a hard-right country, because only in the first case can they try to find a job in California.

Yes, he's assuming the government will not be terrible to live under. But saying "at least with local government, terrible governments will be localized" is a copout. Can we have non-terrible governments? If so, it makes sense to try and ensure everyone has one.

To me this is like telling "Government will be right for everyone this time, if we tweak the parameters right". Applying rules of Empiricism to large scale governing will just make things worse as long as people have very different world views.

Besides, locality has inherent advantages such as familiarity, cultural similarity and accountability. So at least some local governments will be probably suitable for your liking.

I've lived in a small, rural town in Texas and a big city in New Jersey. While the dynamics of local power are very different, I never felt like anybody in power was accountable to me (I am a nobody).

The power of two or three wealthy families is readily visible almost like a movie in a small town. The power structure in a bigger city from what I can gather is a little bit more complex since there are more players. However, I don't think "the powers that be" in a local level are any more accountable to the governed in a localized setting than in a national setting.

I mean think about the last HOA you lived in and tell me you felt the power structure there was "fair".

Just to be clear, injustice at the state level is still injustice. Oppression of minorities at the state level is still oppression. Dragnet surveillance at the state level is still a blow to privacy.

The state rights advocates like I said are the worst. States are too big. What we should focus on is the individual.

i.e. warlords

If it comes to that, having a local warlord over a large state warlord is the better option.

Strange thing is the same friends would not live in Somolia if given the chance...

I would question your assumption there; plenty of Somali diaspora move back and live in Somalia or Somaliland.