Somalia: Libertarian Paradise (VIDEO)

The inimitable Andy Cobb is at it again, taking libertarians to task for their hatred of all things government. You know what has no government? Somalia. So Cobb and the Public Service Administration have made this video encouraging libertarians to vacation in the broken country maintained by "rational self interest and libertarian magic dust."

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[James Bevan]

Can someone please tell me WHY liberals hate libertarians?

[tiltal]

Thank you Andy Cobb, this is brilliant (and the fading voice in the end - genius!) Continue the VERY good work!

[mtracy9]

Another Libertarian paradise in our own hemesphere is Haiti -- no income tax and no unions. The rich aristocracy that runs the country likes it that way, although Haiti the distinction of being the poorest in the Western hemesphere, way behind socialist Cuba.

[confidance government]

Funny Video,

However life has improved faster in somalia since their previous government collpsed.

Their has been more progress under anarchy than under a state.

Makes you think.

[MarineBugler]

From what source(s) do you cite?

[confidance government]

World Bank

http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findingdata/snDescription.asp?sn=4814&key=foreign+investment

have fun ;-)

[confidance government]

In case you have difficulties accessing, the database you can also get the stats in a more condensed format at:

h*ttp://www.spa-psa.org/resources/pdf/csr_jan06/SOMCSR.pdf (fix the l1nk)

[confidance government]

This completely ignores the fact that almost every single development indicator for Somalia has INCREASED, since the previous government collapsed in 1991. Under Somalia's prior communist government, except for literacy (education was provided by aid organizations NOT the government), there was no progress in the standard of living since the 1970's.

Honestly, if this is the example you are giving, you just convinced me not to pay taxes. Somali's are developing faster without the state than with it.

[MarineBugler]

From what source(s) do you cite?

[Marnieblue]

Well I'd have to disagree with Penn on that. Republicans are both hateful and fearful. Have you ever seen a Democrat with a sign that says "God hates Que ers"?

[James Bevan]

I've seen democrats carrying signs accusing Israel and the Jews of being behind the attack on the WTC.

There's hatred and idiocy on BOTH sides. The problem is that if you belong to one of the mainstream parties, you tend to be blind to the hatred that comes from your side.

Wake up; break free from the madness.

[confidance government]

How about their is hatred and idiocy on all sides. I aslo lean towards libertarianism, but it would be dishonest to say that their is one political philosophy or party is perfect . I just think its the least-worst solution.

[James Bevan]

All these vile remarks about libertarians and conservatives provide a lot of supporting evidence for what Penn Jillette once said: Democrats are the party of HATE, Republicans are the party of fear.

[aka-ub]

That is perfect. I live in Alaska, so there are a lot of people around here who think no government at all would be a great thing, just let people fend for themselves. I say, "What about paved roads, public schools, libraries, fire and police departments?" and they say "I don't need any of that. I can provide for myself." They never stop to think about what can really happen if there is no government.

[Badfickle]

I wonder if they cash that ~$2000 check from the oil money that the socialist Alaskan state gives out every year.

[aka-ub]

Of course they do. One guy who insists he could fend for himself w/out police, fire dept, paved roads, etc, also claimed he never applied for a dividend check, but it turned out you could search public records and we found that he had gotten every one of them.

And it's only been $2000 a couple of times. Last year it was around $2000 plus a one time $1200 "energy rebate". Of course it then turned out that oil would not stay at $140/barrel forever and now we're looking at a deficit. Let's see, $1200 x 600,000 Alaskans = oh crap we probably should have saved that money.

[mikesw]

From the comments here, libertarians don't seem to have much of a sense of humor.

[october2009]

Here's a video about a town in Germany that ended up dramatically reducing their accidents and traffic by removing ALL of their driving laws:

http://www.tressugar.com/1739759

[BlackJAC]

You sure you don't mean the town in Germany that banned all cars? If cars are outlawed, only outlaws will have cars!

[treedom]

You know what's great, is that when Somalia's government disintegrated in the 1990s, the slick newsmagazine "Insight" (a sort of libertarian Newsweek run by the Washington Times) actually published an article essentially making a similar case as this video -- but in complete, earnest seriousness.

It talked about how liberating it was for Somalis not to have a government anymore -- no more red tape or corruption. And how the free business environment would surely encourage investment. And, it inferred, Africans are unable to run a government that is not corrupt, so the best thing would be for other African countries not to have governments either.

Years of Islamic militancy, thuggery, civil war, piracy, and economic and social meltdown in Somalia would seem to discredit this libertarian hypothesis. Somalia became a nightmare for its own people, a breeding ground for violent extremism,and a threat to the security and stability of the region and the world.

This real-life example demonstrates why libertarians give me a stomachace. Mix the sanctimoniousness of leftists, the absolutism of rightists, fold in the very worst ideas of both sides, and half-bake, and you've got libertarianism. It's an ideology that would destroy the very guarantors of the market it so worships to the exclusion of all other human values.

[JoeBlough]

You make it sound like "Lord of the Flies"

[cinesimon]

The current GOP leadership issue is incredibly similar to Lord of the Flies, too - it's a very common human phenomenon, what's played out in that book.

[Badfickle]

Do you have a link?

Was it similar to this article?

http://mises.org/story/2066

[chilidog 17]

http://mises.org/story/2066.

Points:

…since 1991, the UN has made efforts to promote the establishment of a democratic government in Somalia. Notten…argues that such government is incompatible with the Somali customary law, which prizes life, liberty, and property. ...democracy isn’t even a viable option:

"When the electorate is composed of close-knit tribal, religious, linguistic or ethnic communities, the people invariably vote, not on the merits of any issue, but for the party of their own community. The community with the greatest numbers wins the election, and the minority parties then put rebellion and secession at the top of their political agenda. That is nothing but a recipe for chaos."

Questions arise as to rampageous warlords when discussing a country without a central government. …warlords exist because of the efforts to form a central government, not because of its absence:

"A democratic government has every power to exert dominion over people. To fend off the possibility of being dominated, each clan tries to capture the power of that government before it can become a threat. Those clans that didn't share in the spoils of political power would realize their chances of becoming part of the ruling alliance were nil. Therefore, they would rebel and try to secede. That would prompt the ruling clans to use every means to suppress these centrifugal forces… in the end all clans would fight with one another."

...efforts by the UN are not only futile, but also harmful to the Somalis.

[chilidog 17]

> And, it inferred, Africans are unable to run a government that is not corrupt, so the best thing would >be for other African countries not to have governments either.

The article might have "implied" that, but it is the reader who infers. Perhaps you inferred that view of Africans.

[confidance government]

Compared to the Communist nightmare that existed previously its an improvement.

[gbrooks]

Getting bored with hating Republicans? YES! Let's pick on the people who would legalize pot! Let's pick on people who would legalize gay marriage! Let's pick on people who don't want government intruding in their or your personal lives! Let's pick on the biggest critics of the "Patriot" Act and FISA! Let's pick on the ONLY group of people who were consistently against the Iraq War, because god knows, your Democrats certainly didn't protest!

Schmucks.

[jsgaetano]

And despite all that, they were still GWB's biggest cheerleaders.

That is why nobody has respect for libertarians. They say one thing, but always vote for the current Republicriminal leader.

[gbrooks]

That's absolutely not true. We've been protesting Bush/Cheney policy for years now, economically, domestically and especially their foreign policy.

It's apparent you don't know many Libertarians.

And for the record, the majority of us did not vote for the GOP in the presidential race, about 50% voted for Obama just to keep Palin out of the White House, most of the rest voted 3rd party. I actually voted for Obama because McCain was too much of a warmonger and Palin is a religious fanatic. A good percentage of us are atheists/agnostic and will do what we can to keep the bible-thumpers out of gov't.

[cinesimon]

That's right: cherry pick your laws - make it sound as though you guys are really only going to be getting rid of the things that it's popular to dislike - regardless of the fact that what you point out is one thousandth of a priority to the reality of true libertarian values.

You cannot pick and choose what rules you want and don't want as a libertarian - or are you a LINO, and only in it to sound 'cool'?

I'll not call you a shmuck, tough - just a cherry picker.

[gbrooks]

Eh? I fully understand some of the good, bad and the ugly of libertarianism. Do you understand the good and bad of your own party?

[BlackJAC]

We're actually picking on people who live in 2009 yet still think the world hasn't changed since 1786. We're also picking on the people who were cool with selling bottled water to Katrina survivors at a usurious markup.

[AtomicallyLiberal]

Actually, the biggest critics of the Patriot Act would be the ACLU. Nice try. Did you guys sue anyone over it?

[rockyersocksoff]

All Democrats want to live in the Soviet Union, all Republicans want to live in Nazi Germany, and all Libertarians want to live in Somalia.

This is what passes for political analysis.

Sad.

[Badfickle]

No this is what passes for satire.

[BlackSwan13]

Let's just take a look at this debate. Typical of the democrats and republicans who want to say this is a zero sum game and when one side is holding the fiddle they don't want someone else playing the music (Paul Street -zmag). This video is just a poor stab and childish mockery of a country, history and labeled political view of thought that in our country should be understood for some of its deeper meaning instead of treated as a cable network show.
At the heart of what is considered worst in this video all points to the guys around our current president. I think Paul Street said it best "Obama in his 100 Days Press Conference tonight: "I don't want to run auto companies," the president says. "I don't want to run banks. I have got two wars I gotta run already; I've got more than enough to do."

Two "wars to run," eh? Two illegal and mass-murderous invasions would be more like it. How about that "peace president"!

If you call yourself left and don't understand that this guy and the people around around him are your enemies, then there's something wrong with you.

My opinion. Sorry"

[David Toyne]

This debate is all over the place. Not bad for a comedy video.

I think I can clarify. When libertarians argue their case, they do based on a basic set of principles which don't change from issue to issue. It seems to me that liberals suffer from issue thinking, with no regard for the deeper philosophical principles underlying them. In many ways the attitudes of liberals comes off as subjective and emotional, rather than based on any philosophical right.

Take, for example, the idea that it is wrong to steal. A libertarian will see this as an absolute law, whereas a liberal will see it as a relative law. For a liberal it seems okay to steal if it is for a good cause. Universal healthcare is a right because no-one should be sick. The libertarian acknowledges that while it might be nice, it requires either a doctor to work for free or for someone else to pay for it, ie. it must be stolen.

Libertarians argue for a absolute laws, based on solid moral principles, not based on emotional arguments. When your basic philosophy is free of contradictions, it is like seeing the picture of the jigsaw. Arguing over which piece seems right or wrong just seems irrelevant. The thing about Ayn Rand was that it wasn't about loving corporations or wanting to be selfish, it was about tying together metaphysics, morality, politics, economics, etc into a non-contradictory whole, based upon man's nature, not his whim.

[dolphy]

I think you just used the public electronic domain to write this comment.

[Badfickle]

Egad. That sounds so socialist when you say it like that.

[David Toyne]

Really? I thought I was using a network of privately owned computers. But what does that have to do with my post?

[snoopjohnny]

But is it strictly whim, and not man's nature that is so often profoundly contradictory? A genuine desire for fairness and equality in an employee is sometimes lost when the honest struggle for accomplishment puts him in the CEO's chair. Sounds like man's nature to me, and it's not right or wrong. However, it can be managed or (shudder) governed fairly for the good of liberty, capitalism, the individual......or left to be sorted out by "natural" cyclic swings that require revolution or civil war to "correct the market" or "regulate".

Absolutes are indeed an attractive way to see the whole picture. Or frame it......We all want clarity; our forefathers had a strong streak of clear, independent and Libertarian thinking that is part of our history. A clear eyed look at our past also paints a rich story of messy gray areas, when laws thought to be absolute (like a black man being 3/5ths of a man) turned out to be economically driven contradictions that cost us dearly. It's also clearly our nature to become impatient with checks and balances and seek absolute solutions at the cost of democracy. That's when things can get like...uh.­...Somalia­.

[David Toyne]

Well said. I think you bring up some good points. For man's intentions are often capricious and can change at will. Yet, man's nature is something that even he can't change, though he might try to rebel against it.

Governments is, when it comes right down to it, a body which uses force to enact it's policies. The question that we and our Somali brothers must face is, to what end can that force be morally used? Is it moral to force people to do the right thing, or is it only moral to stop people doing the wrong thing? When it comes down to it, what is right and wrong?

If our guiding principles are freedom, then we can use the force of government to protect this, as it is God-given. That one is easy. But when government starts to dictate what is right and wrong over domains which are not given to all of us, then we run into a biased use of force.

The mistaken assumptions of the past (such as slavery and racism) don't disqualify absolutes, they highlight the fact that the mistakes and decisions of the majority shouldn't be allowed to impinge on the freedoms of others.

Unfortunately we live in an era of the tyranny of the majority.

[Badfickle]

Did you go to work on roads? Did you pay for them all? Some of my tax dollars went to build the road you used. It might be nice to have roads connecting you to where you want to go but some else has to pay for it. It must be stolen. It's wrong to steal. It's an absolute law.

Your philosophy is free of contradictions, based on solid moral principles, not based on emotional arguments. You see the the whole jigsaw picture. Arguing over which piece is right or wrong is just irrelevant.

So I'm sure your living that uncontradicted life. Not using those stolen roads.

[David Toyne]

There are approximately 250 million registered vehicles on the roads. I assume the money paid to register all those vehicles went somewhere.

Isn't that the obvious solution?

There used to be a time when we only had one phone company too, but now we can choose which phone plan suits us the best. The infrastructure for telecommunications could easily be funded by the government, then rented out to companies who want to use it. The cost of rental would then ultimately be borne by the end user.

I think the problem of public services are not complicated as it's a huge market, therefore the cost to each user is very small in comparison to the CDs, junk food and gadgets that the Average Joe wastes his money on.

[BlackJAC]

Morality is subjective. What Ayn Rand thought was "morality" was really the mistaken sense of entitlement every descendant of self-made people develops, and her works were temper tantrums over having her nice comfortable life taken from her by people more willing to kill for what they wanted than she was.

[David Toyne]

Such a superficial reading of Rand. Her brilliance was in showing how morality didn't need to be subjective and that it can hold true for all humans, everywhere, based on their fundamental (selfish) nature.

Despite suggestions here to the contrary, she valued rational self-interest and abhorred blind hedonistic whim.

She did not abhor charity either, provided it was voluntary. Essentially, she advocated freedom in all realms of human endeavor and tried to base her philosophy around reality, not on what she wanted to be true.

Anyone can advocate giving to the poor, but such systems are based on emotional arguments, not reality and inevitably fail in their professed purpose anyway. If anything it has been the "selfish" capitalist system which has provided the greatest advances for mankind, enabling the average Joe to live like a millionaire would have just years ago.

[AtomicallyLiberal]

Which is ridiculous, because it is man's nature to be absolutely illogical.