Freedomain Radio

 I never did fully understand the difference between anarchy there and possible anarchy here. But after much thought, I've found that the answer is in psychohistory; that it is dependant on how people are raised.

Now I don't know for sure how children are treated in Somolia, I am aware of what it's like in many other places in Africa, so I feel that it isn't too risky to assume, especially since the environment is already quite violent.

On the other hand, for peaceful anarchy to happen naturally, it requires a generation that is undamaged enough to use rational thought without too much effort. I am fairly sure that people in America have better childhoods than people in Somolia, and that should reflect in how people behave in the absence of a state.

That do you think?

It might also have something to do with the fact that - and this seems to shock people - Somalia wasn't a first world country before Anarchy. ALL it's measures of well being went up in the few short years it managed without a government, and I think they coped far better than America would in such a short period of time because of their customary legal system and small communities. Sure, the warlordism was bad, but the voluntary navy was really hard warming and even the few "pirates" taking that label did nothing compared to the horrors of the American Navy. If Somalia had had another few decades without government, they'd have really made something to see, especially with the massive rise in education (for both sexes of course) that was visible, and massive economic boom that telecommunications companies were bringing.

I can't comment on America's children (being British), but I am sure it isn't Anarchy ready yet, or there'd be Anarchy.

Agalloch:

It might also have something to do with the fact that - and this seems to shock people - Somalia wasn't a first world country before Anarchy. ALL it's measures of well being went up in the few short years it managed without a government, and I think they coped far better than America would in such a short period of time because of their customary legal system and small communities. Sure, the warlordism was bad, but the voluntary navy was really hard warming and even the few "pirates" taking that label did nothing compared to the horrors of the American Navy. If Somalia had had another few decades without government, they'd have really made something to see, especially with the massive rise in education (for both sexes of course) that was visible, and massive economic boom that telecommunications companies were bringing.

I can't comment on America's children (being British), but I am sure it isn't Anarchy ready yet, or there'd be Anarchy.

Though I agree many people aren't "ready" for it, but that doesn't mean that they would not manage better than they do now.

As for Somalia, yes, so much improved after the state was abandoned. 

       "Although Somalia's public healthcare system was largely destroyed during the ensuing civil war, general living conditions have significantly improved in the intervening years, both in absolute terms and relative to other countries in Africa. As with other previously nationalized sectors, informal providers have filled the vacuum and replaced the former government monopoly over healthcare, with access to facilities witnessing a significant increase.^[18][19] Many new healthcare centers, clinics, hospitals and pharmacies have in the process been established through home-grown Somali initiatives.^[120] While the state of medicine remains quite basic, medical consultations in these facilities are very affordable ($0.50/visit).^[18]"

Most of the problems that remain are from two sources, one is religion, as much of their private policing companies are all religiously based, and, of course, this is propagated by the religious adherence and beliefs of much of the population.  In other words, the people are still acting on religious bigotry and abuse, but this was prevalent with their state in power before.

The other main source of strife is the warlords.  Now this is where it gets really interesting.  There are "secular" warlord type gangs.  Yeah, makes sense doesn't it?  Untill you find out that outside governments (mainly the USA) are putting those warlords in place, and funding them.  Similarly, many outside states have/are attempted(ing) to instill a government in Somalia, and they technically have one, but it has little to no influence over the people, and merely acts to slow them down, like all states.

So, the remaining "problems" in Somalia seem to come from religion and states.  What a surprise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

I recall reading about the US funding the terrorism there, but I didn't see it upon skimming the article today.  It may have been in another article on Somalia.  There's plenty of interesting information out there on Somalia, and it is surprising how much their NEAR "anarchy" has improved their situations.

I find Somalia to be a non-sequiter. People say "well, if anarchy is so good, move to somalia LOL". My goal isn't anarchy, my goal is the non-initiation of the use of force, anarchy is just the result of the consistant application of that.

I agree with everying the above two posters have said, I'd also like to add this funny thought experiment to pass on to the statists who consider "Somalia" to be criticism. Why is Somalia, a single geographic area which happens to have an irrelevant lack of central monopoly on force, a criticism of "Anarchy", while Nazi Germany, whose every fault is a matter of consistency to the principles of Statism - using violence to achieve unstated goals - not a better criticism? And if both are equally possible criticisms, and Somalia is the worst example of Anarchism, then isn't Anarchism superior to Statism?

What an excellent debating point. I will use it next time someone tells me to move to Somalia.

I highly doubt it would work, citing Germany and Hitler, as they will dismiss it as being fascism, not democracy.  They would probably view it as similar to citing a violently abusive parent as being a reason to abandon all parenting.  I doubt they would make that exact comparison, but that is what the example will sound/feel like to them.

When someone suggests moving to Somalia for a "free-market" paradise or some such, it is probably best to point out that they have improved exponentially since the abolishment of their previous government, and looking at them relative to where they were, they are/were doing great.  However, we are simply at a starting point well beyond (in some ways) where they are, so to abandon the government here would allow for infinitely more progress relative to Somalia's progress.

The state (for the sake of discussion with a statist) is like unions, they served their purpose, and now they only serve themselves.  Of course, they never really even served a purpose, at least not one that required the state over other solutions, but to get the point across, it is best to imply they did, as statists will firmly assert there are many things we should be "thankful" to the state for.  Not the "who will provide the roads" but rather the state DID provide the roads.  Of course this is completely fallacious in that it ignores the fact that we could have had roads with out them all along, but that wall will be nearly impossible to break through.

Basically, with some, it is easier to get through to them by letting them think the state got us so far, and is now just holding us back, like a parent who raises you to adult hood, but you don't stay under them forever.  We are well beyond old enough to leave big daddy behind as a society.

 My point was about Statism not Democracy, but gdw is right, it will probably be dismissed with denial that Democracy is in any way coercive; however, you're probably arguing with a lost cause anyway if they don't at least consider this. I wouldn't personally use Hitler as an example, probably Yugoslavia, which was fairly democratic and which again, suffered far worse than Somalia. My main position in any discussion on Somalia is to never let people draw me away from repeating "compared to Somalia before". Don't compare Capitalist Victorian England with Massively Socialist Super-futuristic society, because no one believes one would become the other if it adopted it's economic policies, so repeat the same about Somalia.

Agalloch:

 My point was about Statism not Democracy, but gdw is right, it will probably be dismissed with denial that Democracy is in any way coercive; however, you're probably arguing with a lost cause anyway if they don't at least consider this. I wouldn't personally use Hitler as an example, probably Yugoslavia, which was fairly democratic and which again, suffered far worse than Somalia. My main position in any discussion on Somalia is to never let people draw me away from repeating "compared to Somalia before". Don't compare Capitalist Victorian England with Massively Socialist Super-futuristic society, because no one believes one would become the other if it adopted it's economic policies, so repeat the same about Somalia.

Exactly, to suggest moving to Somalia would be comparable to suggesting someone who supports democracy to move to a third world country that just adopted a more pure form democracy than what there currently is in the states.

Or, to suggest moving back in time to the USA when it was first formed.  In a lot of ways, governmentally, it was better, but overall life was nothing like it is now.  They are suggesting you take all the things completely unrelated to anarchy along with pseudo anarchy in Somalia.  Try to find a similar "democracy" to suggest they move to.