I'm sure just about all of you have heard this argument before, and I presume we all know why it's fallacious.
In that light, I got linked to this... very interesting article (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/somalia-failed-state-economic-success/) on how Somalia has been faring since the fall of its latest government, and thought it might be worth sharing.
EDIT: So if they're allowed to call Somalia a "libertarian/anarchist paradise," does that mean we're allowed to call countries like Uganda a "democratic paradise?"
Quote from: Altimadark on August 26, 2012, 09:33:25 PM
I'm sure just about all of you have heard this argument before, and I presume we all know why it's fallacious.
In that light, I got linked to this... very interesting article (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/somalia-failed-state-economic-success/) on how Somalia has been faring since the fall of its latest government, and thought it might be worth sharing.
EDIT: So if they're allowed to call Somalia a "libertarian/anarchist paradise," does that mean we're allowed to call countries like Uganda a "democratic paradise?"
for some reason, looking at the Somali tribal laws remind me in part of some traditional Arab or Islamic laws/bylaws: in both for example, Murder can be dealt with using what's known as a "diyyah", which is a quantity in camels (or the monetary equivalent) for certain actions. traditionally, this was set at 100 camels too for murder, though the details vary according to severity: and while Arabs traditionally also cut the value of a woman by 50, Islamic law (at least the jurisprudence I grew up with), does not (one note: Arab and Islamic law also provide the option (up to the family and judge) for simply taking "qasaas" from the perp. that is to say, they execute the murderer.)
coincidentally, that's the "wirgelt" I referred to that I preferred as a punishment for murder.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on August 27, 2012, 02:29:07 AM
for some reason, looking at the Somali tribal laws remind me in part of some traditional Arab or Islamic laws/bylaws: in both for example, Murder can be dealt with using what's known as a "diyyah", which is a quantity in camels (or the monetary equivalent) for certain actions. traditionally, this was set at 100 camels too for murder, though the details vary according to severity: and while Arabs traditionally also cut the value of a woman by 50, Islamic law (at least the jurisprudence I grew up with), does not (one note: Arab and Islamic law also provide the option (up to the family and judge) for simply taking "qasaas" from the perp. that is to say, they execute the murderer.)
coincidentally, that's the "wirgelt" I referred to that I preferred as a punishment for murder.
If I understand correctly, "wirgelt" is the traditional way to handle almost all serious crimes against people or property in most European legal systems before the rise of central governments. It's the origin of the English legal term 'felony': It was the largest fine it was possible for a person to pay, equal to the value of everything a person owned (which later became the term for the crime, rather than the penalty).
Not only do we get that argument all the time, but they've made multiple videos on it.
This one is pretty notable because of its sheer douchebaggery:
[yt]7QDv4sYwjO0[/yt]
Quote from: evensgrey on August 27, 2012, 08:42:56 AM
If I understand correctly, "wirgelt" is the traditional way to handle almost all serious crimes against people or property in most European legal systems before the rise of central governments. It's the origin of the English legal term 'felony': It was the largest fine it was possible for a person to pay, equal to the value of everything a person owned (which later became the term for the crime, rather than the penalty).
and you would be right: but a similar system existed, and continues to exist, in the Arab world--especially among the bedouins. I just call both by the English name, since it's the closest I can come up with.
As Stef put it, calling Somalia an anarchy is like saying if you burn down a church, the result is atheism.
Not to mention it's an argument of convenience, a complete act of cowardice. I do not believe for a second that these people would accept "well move out if you don't like it" if the situation were reversed.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on August 28, 2012, 08:06:21 AM
it's an argument of convenience, a complete act of cowardice. I do not believe for a second that these people would accept "well move out if you don't like it" if the situation were reversed.
And somehow Somalia's people are
still doing better than most of the people in other African nations, most of which
do have some form of government. The argument is fail all around.
Quote from: Altimadark on August 28, 2012, 11:52:53 AM
And somehow Somalia's people are still doing better than most of the people in other African nations, most of which do have some form of government. The argument is fail all around.
Even if that wasn't the case...
Somalia was ruled by dictators who ravaged the land, robbed the people blind and executed anyone who so much as looked at them funny for the better part of the century at least.
They've only been without a government for 19 years or so.
And the argument is that LACK of government is why things are so bad? Can you say selection bias?