• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Thought experiment: North Korea vs. Somalia

Answer the bolded question in the OP


  • Total voters
    10

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
North Korea and Somalia are both relatively poor countries, yet they are diametric opposites on the amount-of-government axis. The former has lots and lots of government, and the latter has essentially zero government. If forced to choose between being forcefully parachuted into one or the other, which would you choose?
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
My answer

Though Somalia and North Korea are far from identical in areas other than the amount-of-government axis, thereby making a perfect control group style experiment impossible, both countries are relatively poor (though North Korea is quasi-industrialized and Somalia is not industrialized). I created this thought experiment because I think that it poignantly cuts to the heart of the eternal debate over how much government is appropriate. In North Korea, you are not free to leave (indeed, not only are you subject to torture and death if you try to leave this statist hell hole, but your family members are subject to such treatment as well if you attempt to leave). In Somalia, you are free to leave. This demonstrates the immense moral and practical superiority of little-to-no-government over lots-and-lots-of-government.

QED
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
To the surprise of many, there are numerous sectors of Somalia’s economy that have remained robust or have turned better than they were before the war. This is the Somalia you don’t get to read about.

Even more striking is the fact that a number of these sectors are more upbeat than those of the neighboring countries that have enjoyed relative peace.One of the economic areas enjoying robust growth amid the volatility in the country is trade.

http://afrikanews.org/news-mainmenu...u-26/19-how-somalia-thrives-amid-anarchy.html

Civil War, Anarchy....Yet Somalia's Mobile Phone Industry Thrives

A number of mobile phone, Internet and landline companies are revolutionizing Somalia’s telecommunications industry.

Among their customers are farmers and business people.

Establishing a phone company and making it profitable in a country where there is no government is a challenge according to sales and marketing director for Nationlink Telecom, Abdulahi Amir.

“When the country’s civil war occurred, a growing need for people to communicate with each other came about as families became dispersed. The industry took off throughout the country almost immediately since there was no other form for people to communicate,” Amir says.

Weak Governance Creates Advantage

Compared to land lines, cell phones require little infrastructure and can be made available almost immediately.

Because of the absence of a central government, there is no bureaucracy to issue a license, or tax the industry. However traditional clans, make sure bills are paid and contracts honored.

No matter how dire the situation in Somalia, the entrepreneurial spirit lives on. By building small airstrips and using natural harbors businessmen are able to import cell phones, from faraway places like China.

http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2009-08-06-voa33-68705587/409305.html
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The choice I would pick is "neither." Posing the question commits the logic error of false choice, positing that only one of two eventualities is possible, usually by creating ridiculously implausible circumstances to create a false dichotomy.

Oh, and while Somalia might not have a real and formal government, everyone in Somalia is subject to being governed by someone. Without the People getting together and choosing a government, they will get default government, usually from the nearest and strongest thug.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
The choice I would pick is "neither." Posing the question commits the logic error of false choice, positing that only one of two eventualities is possible, usually by creating ridiculously implausible circumstances to create a false dichotomy.

There is no false choice. The hypothetical scenario is you get abducted, placed on a plane, and asked where you want to be dropped. If you refuse to choose, then a choice will be made for you. I chose extreme opposites to illustrate my point. I never stated or implied that these are the only two viable real world choices.

Oh, and while Somalia might not have a real and formal government, everyone in Somalia is subject to being governed by someone. Without the People getting together and choosing a government, they will get default government, usually from the nearest and strongest thug.

As my username indicates, I prefer something in between these two extremes, albeit much closer to the Somalian end of the spectrum.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Whether you recognize it or not, you have engineered a false choice.

My other point was that there is no other end of the spectrum. A government vacuum is not possible. It will be filled by despotism, creating a bunch of tiny North Koreas that will suck each other up, creating a few small, but not tiny, North Koreas.

The opposite of despotism is not anarchy. It is something akin to what the Framers tried to create. The US (at least as it was intended) is not in the middle of the spectrum. It is almost all the way to the Liberty end.

Anyway, I've made my point. Moving on.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Whether you recognize it or not, you have engineered a false choice.

What can possibly be false about a hypothetical scenario (as long as said hypothetical scenario doesn't involve breaking the laws of physics)?!?! :confused:

My other point was that there is no other end of the spectrum. A government vacuum is not possible. It will be filled by despotism, creating a bunch of tiny North Koreas that will suck each other up, creating a few small, but not tiny, North Koreas.

Right, but Somalia is as close an example as possible to the opposite end of the spectrum as North Korea.

The opposite of despotism is not anarchy. It is something akin to what the Framers tried to create. The US (at least as it was intended) is not in the middle of the spectrum. It is almost all the way to the Liberty end.

Right, the USA was founded as a minarchist, libertarian republic, and it has grossly strayed from that state to some dystopian statist nightmare, due to human weakness (among other factors).
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Of course if one doesn't want to play one does't have too.

Personally I'll take the least amount of goverment.

Yes, the idea that I am attempting to illustrate is that, when push comes to shove, anarchy (or near anarchy) is preferable to a prison state (something that we are rapidly approaching). I think that it is a simple, elegant demonstration of the superiority of small government to large government (regardless of whether said large government is "conservative" or liberal in nature).
 

Sheldon

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
556
Location
Battle Creek, ,
NK, no food, no cover, paranoid people made so by a paranoid government, freezing cold at night and in the winter, stark landscape, hard to negotiate, communist to the north, DMZ death zone to the south...
Guess where I voted...
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Yes, the idea that I am attempting to illustrate is that, when push comes to shove, anarchy (or near anarchy) is preferable to a prison state (something that we are rapidly approaching). I think that it is a simple, elegant demonstration of the superiority of small government to large government (regardless of whether said large government is "conservative" or liberal in nature).

"To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying."

-Richard Henry Lee
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
"To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying."

-Richard Henry Lee

I like his way of getting his point across.

Using Eye's comment about getting a thug government by default as an example, statists seem content to declare with certainty what would happen, when there is no evidence that such always occurs.

During the Articles of Confederation, one of the northern states went quite awhile without a state government. So, literally, they had anarchy, but without any more violence or crime.

Along the lines of Lee's comment, statists are just saying that we should elect and support criminals and criminality in order to avoid worse criminality when thugs are allowed to fight it out among themselves to see who gets to be king. Or, rather, statists are almost saying that. They're not quite that honest. Because, after the criminals are elected to conduct criminality, the statists then try to clothe those particular criminals with legitimacy. And, try to convince the rest of us that government is not criminal.
 
Last edited:

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
No-brainer ! Drop me over Somalia . Reasonable prospect of meeting up with rational minds.

Absolutely do not drop me over the U.S. for the same reason.
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Thuggery and violence don't come from the lack of a government, but rather from the attempts to establish one.

Despotism by violent warlords and despotism by established dictactorial central governments might seem a dilemma but really isn't. That's because you have a far greater chance of fighting the warlord, than the government.
 
Top