Are Nigeria, Sudan, and/or Somalia "libertarian" or objectivis

[JamieP]

I know very little about Nigeria, Sudan, and Somalia...and even less about how their governments are set up. I'm wondering if anyone who happens to pass by this topic and happens to have knowledge of how these governments operate could comment (really anything helps). I'm really looking for ways in which their governments are similar and ways in which they are different from the ideal objectivist government. thanks.

[softwareNerd]

I'm really looking for ways in which their governments are similar and ways in which they are different from the ideal objectivist government. thanks.

On the scale from 0% to 100% of things Objectivism would want in a government, all these three are far worse than the U.S.

The crucial question to ask is: to what extent are individual rights recognized and protected de facto.

Edited February 4, 2011 by brian0918
messed up typo

[JamieP]

sNerd, I want to thank you for your input. You've been consistently helping me these last few days and I appreciate it.

The reason why I bring this one up is that a friend of mine is comparing the government set up by our founding fathers (jefferson, etc) to these other governments. I would like to show him specific examples of how each of the other governments is flawed and doesn't do the real job of protecting property rights, etc. I know that the constitution was be no means perfect, but my understanding is that is was pretty close to the right idea. It was things like the abuse of the "interstate commerce act" that allowed government to expand its reach to a point that the founding fathers had not intended.

but this is sort of besides the point. I'd rather just show how these other countries fail in terms of having the ideal objectivist government to show how they are not real examples of a "failure of objectivist societies" (according to my friend).

[softwareNerd]

... The reason why I bring this one up is that a friend of mine is comparing the government set up by our founding fathers (jefferson, etc) to these other governments. ...

Does your friend offer some facts to back up what he must realize is a bizarre-sounding claim? Would he like to emigrate to Somalia, buy lots of property there and live there happily, secure in the thought that his life and property is secure? Surely the onus is on him to explain in what ways the Somalian government protects individual rights. I recommend reading "Infidel" by Hirsi, an enjoyable book. Edited February 4, 2011 by softwareNerd

[Talk Is Cheap]

all of these places are total crap holes. the main problem with these countries is there crazy religious extremism and a pretty much there entire culture not really respecting the idea of individual rights. however the stateless legal order in place in Somalia (not sure about the other two) is less bad then it would be if they had a state.

[Tomer Ravid]

Capitalism does not creat poverty just as socialism (and `big governments`) does not create abundance.

Leftists rationalist will claim: This is what happens when the government doesn`t take money from the tycoons and share it with the barbarians.

Well, what tycoons, intellectuals or mere productive industirialists do you know in Somalia?

None. There is simply no one with the self-interest and the ability (and therefore the rational self interest) to create this money, these goods, this property, these volitional and rational means of survival.

Now here is the formula: Galt`s Gulch does not equal Islamic Totalitarian Anarchy.

[JamieP]

In my estimation, he sees similarities in that they are all "government lite" so to speak. Clearly, what is more important is the proper functioning of a government...NOT how much "governing" a government has to do, so to speak. A government (as far as I see it) should act as strongly and as often as it is required to. If there happens to be a high number of thefts one year, then the government will just have to hold court that many more times.

[JamieP]

all of these places are total crap holes. the main problem with these countries is there crazy religious extremism and a pretty much there entire culture not really respecting the idea of individual rights. however the stateless legal order in place in Somalia (not sure about the other two) is less bad then it would be if they had a state.

This is helpful thank you. Could you (if possible) elaborate more on the religious aspects of these countries? Do they not have separation of religion and state? Clearly that would be a difference between them and the constitution.

Also, do you have any specific examples of disregard for individual rights?

[softwareNerd]

In my estimation, he sees similarities in that they are all "government lite" so to speak.

In places like Somalia, what one has is a lack of essential governmental functions. These place highlight the importance of having a government. Without a government, individual rights will be routinely violated. More precisely, without a government people do not have legally objective and enforceable rights.

For instance, in the U.S. we might complain that case like "Kelo" undermine the right to property. While true in principle, in actual implementation, the procedures in Western countries around property titles have been in place for decades, making selling and buying much less risky than in a typical third world country. In many third-world countries, courts are so backed up, and corrupt that if a debtor does not pay a creditor, getting the money back via the courts is a daunting process. In many third-world countries, there are all sort of laws that few even bother to obey. This lack of a rule of law has an advantage: less restrictions. However, it comes with a steep cost: no recourse to justice. This, in turn, has a huge cost. English law and other European law have had centuries to formulate all sorts of procedures and protections, around various types of transactions. While these are sometimes restraining, removing all such protections is worse than the imperfect protections. An author who has addressed these issues is Hernando de Soto.

The main take-away is this: government lite is bad.

We might say government-lite is good if we focus on taxes, and restrictions, and drug-laws. However, as long as government is doing the right things -- protecting contracts, protecting lives, protecting property -- having it do its utmost and be super-effective in these areas is a good thing.

[Alfred Centauri]

More precisely, without a government people do not have legally objective and enforceable rights.

I disagree. Government is not the source of rights. Men possess objective, inalienable rights because of their nature as rational beings. These rights can, and most likely will, be violated without the rule of objective law to protect them but these rights do not evaporate when there is no government.

[Dante]

I disagree. Government is not the source of rights. Men possess objective, inalienable rights because of their nature as rational beings. These rights can, and most likely will, be violated without the rule of objective law to protect them but these rights do not evaporate when there is no government.

It is true that rights arise out of the nature of man, but that's not what's being argued against here. It is apparent that "legally objective and enforceable rights" cannot exist without a legal system of enforcement. Rights, regarded not as moral concepts governing social contexts, but as legally enforceable claims, cannot exist without a strong, stable government.

[JayR]

I disagree. Government is not the source of rights. Men possess objective, inalienable rights because of their nature as rational beings.

True, but,

These rights can, and most likely will, be violated without the rule of objective law to protect them but these rights do not evaporate when there is no government.

To the extent that a Government can enforce objective law, theres a measure of security (freedom). But try telling a gang of thugs lopping your familys limbs off about your inalienable rights, youll end up with alienable hands.

[Alfred Centauri]

To the extent that a Government can enforce objective law, theres a measure of security (freedom). But try telling a gang of thugs lopping your familys limbs off about your inalienable rights, youll end up with alienable hands.

Your reply seems trivial and irrelevant. Even under the rule of objective law, a gang of thugs remains a gang of thugs. Telling them that the government will retaliate against them is as unlikely to dissuade them as telling them about inalienable rights so what exactly is your point?

[softwareNerd]

... so what exactly is your point?

The point is that inalienable rights are of no value unless there is a powerful enough wielder of force to enforce them.

BTW: This is really off topic.

[Alfred Centauri]

It is true that rights arise out of the nature of man, but that's not what's being argued against here.

Let me re-quote the comment I replied to:

Without a government, individual rights will be routinely violated. More precisely, without a government people do not have legally objective and enforceable rights.

First of all, without government, there is no legal system so isn't it almost trivial to say that there are no legally enforceable claims without government? If this is what the author meant, then I agree but so what?

Still isn't it true that, in the absence of government, one may elect to enforce his individual rights, e.g., his right to produce and to keep the fruits of his production, himself or elect to trade with others to enforce them for him and that it is right for him to do this?

[JamieP]

The point is that inalienable rights are of no value unless there is a powerful enough wielder of force to enforce them.

BTW: This is really off topic.

Yeah, this does seem really off point. It seems that the main point in the governments like Somalia is that there is a lack of law enforcement (and by law enforcement I mean actual ENFORCEMENT of the laws of the land, not lack of police officers...although that might be true as well). Does this seem like a good summation?

[Tanaka]

Yeah, this does seem really off point. It seems that the main point in the governments like Somalia is that there is a lack of law enforcement (and by law enforcement I mean actual ENFORCEMENT of the laws of the land, not lack of police officers...although that might be true as well). Does this seem like a good summation?

As of the past couple of years, Somalia's official judicial system is Shari'a. And it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. That is a problem in itself.

There are some areas still not under government control, but most of the country, including most of Mogadishu, is now subject to the Shari'a court system.