The dumbest objections against statelessness #8
"If you don't like government, move to Somalia!"
There exists a false and disingenuous presumption that Somalia is supposedly an example of Mad-Max free-for-all statelessness where people are reduced to predatory animals solely because of a lack of authority structure. This insane lie produces the straw man “argument” that Somalia’s status somehow signifies the “necessity” of the evil of the state.
This is demonstrably false.
If Somalia were indeed stateless and free, I’d move there in a heartbeat, and so would every statist eventually. The hopelessly miseducated imagine Somalia somehow being an example of “stateless chaos” and somehow “proof” that, without government, “warlords would take over!” Yet it’s true: Somalia is indeed an actual example of warlords taking over… not in spite of government, but because of government.
The reality is that Somalia does indeed have a government - a federal government no less. And warlords still reign over certain territories, even though the government’s one job is (supposedly) to protect its people from arbitrary power grabs.
Isn’t that why we always “justify” the supposedly “necessary” evil of government?.. to have one monopoly of violence - one hegemonic stability - instead of numerous power-hungry hopefuls fighting it off all the time?
Somalia is a government, and a quite enlarged one too (federal government). Somalia has always had a government. Somalia is not a pro-government argument. Somalia is an anti-government argument; a testament to what happens even under government and because of government.
If anything, the example of Somalia proves that the state cannot protect you against the evils it evokes to justify its unnecessary existence.
“Aha,” I hear you say. “The warlords operate in regions over which the Somalian government has lost control, so technically, the warlords and the government don’t coexist in the same territories.”
It’s funny how statists think this is a valid argument. No, this means that the existence of a government apparatus cannot guarantee you protection from warlords taking over. Have warlords taken over territories that technically “belong” to the state? Then the state proves to be useless.
The fact that Somali-style warlords don’t seem to seize territories in the vast majority of governments is an indication that they wouldn’t even if no government existed. Why? Because Somalia proves that it’s perfectly feasible for warlords to take over even with government. The 2014 Bundy standoff or the 2020 CHAZ/CHOP protests in Seattle also demonstrate that, even in “first world” countries, the state is still unable to control its own people, if the people truly committed to resisting it. Couple that with oligarchs, cartels, and mafias already in place (and much more peaceful than the state), and you know that warlords can take and are already taking over - because of the state that empowers them.
If Somali-style militant warlords can take over regions belonging to a centralised monopoly of state violence no less, then why isn’t this the norm in most countries of the world? Could it be that the phobia of “warlords taking over” is unjustified? Could it be that such warlords would likely not take over even without government?
Could it be that people in general value stability (even a hegemonic one) more than war with the state?
Let’s be real here: warlords do the government’s bidding. Warlords and manufactured boogeymen alike keep the government relevant in populations that don’t really see the necessity for a government; populations that aren’t obsessed with empire, statehood, and self-righteously enforcing their brand of “morality” onto others (e.g. Western and Eastern populations). Warlords work for the government, either directly or indirectly, much like Hamas is an Israeli government asset. Every single thing Hamas has ever done resulted in more powers, more funding, and more victimhood privilege for the Israeli government. Go figure.
Somalia proves that government cannot protect you at all. The Somalian government may even pretend to want to disarm the warlords, just like Israel pretends it wants to get rid of Hamas, or the US regime pretends to want to eradicate Al Qaeda, ISIS, FSA, HTS, or its other Islamic terrorism creations. In reality, these governments owe their relevance to these militant groups, these boogeymen. It is these “warlords” and “rebels” that empower the state, create the imagined “necessity” for government, and bring the people’s tacit subservience and obedience to government.
Fear is the key here. Keep people afraid of a contrived boogeyman, and the people will never come to question your “right” to rule. They will willingly relinquish their freedom in exchange for hope of future protection - not even actual protection in the present.
If a centralised government (with the vast resources it arbitrarily holds) truly wanted to end the warlord epidemic in Somalia, it would have easily choked their supply lines, moved against them in force, or found some way to negotiate with them by granting them government positions. It is extremely easy to do, given the state’s air superiority, intel, infrastructure, and means for diplomacy.
I believe the Somalian government, like the Mexican and Russian governments, owes its existence to warlords, cartels, and oligarchs who were granted by the state the privilege of arms and exploitation. In return for this special treatment, these gangs get to keep people in line so that they don’t revolt, or at least not demand a less oppressive government. This is my opinion.
This is the same model as the medieval unholy alliance of church and crown (or kings and lords): the crown granted the church special privileges at the expense of others, and in return, the church got to exploit its spiritual monopoly and brainwash-influence on the people to sanctify the state. It was an alliance in which both brutalising entities needed each other, and they each contributed to each other the unique influence they had. The Blackadder episode “The Archbishop” illustrates a satirical yet spot-on rendition of this point. Even the Islamic Ottoman empire kept and cooperated with the Christian religious “authorities” of the regions it had conquered: Ottoman sultans granted Christian clerics special privileges under Ottoman law, and in return, the clerics would use their hold on their flock to discourage revolts and keep the faithful obedient to the Islamic state. They even perpetuated propaganda messaging that “God let them be conquered because they were unfaithful.” This was incremental in maintaining obedient subversive “order” in Islamic empires.
This model of “state and controlled resistance” has adapted today in modern “democracies” in the government-academia duo. Since religion in the West is almost completely dead, the faith vacuum is now filled by the new-age religion of scientism, technocracy, and academia-worship. Academia receives from the state a monopoly of accreditation and the exclusive “licensing” of recognition and certification - not to mention lavish funding from the state. And in return, smug academics and self-anointed “experts” appeal to their perceived “authority” to sanctify the state. All academics, reliant on the state as they are, have every incentive to legitimise the state in the minds of their brainwashed students, and to propagandise the naive gullible masses into believing that the state is somehow “the best system we have” - when this is a monstrous lie.
So, this is how Somalia works: warlords have exclusive ownership of weapons in their territories. How is this any different from any other government possessing the exclusivity of arms and their use against their people? If anything, Somalia seems to have outsourced this monopoly of violence to non-governmental contractors: warlords.
The people behind such governments rely on their churches, academics, warlords, and oligarchs to stay in power. And when these entities commit atrocities, at least the state can play the blame game and absolve itself of any responsibility in the minds of its captive population.
Government is directly responsible for the problems it pretends to try to solve.
Lastly, let us ponder on the meaning of “warlords taking over.” What are “warlords taking over” other than your government, your politicians, and their oligarch lobbyists? Their only difference is that, in supposed “civilised” countries, these warlords are dishonest about their true nature. They export their war but keep their lordship at home. At least Somalian warlords are honest.
Thank you for reading. I appreciate your time. All my work here is free.
Like, comment, share, or subscribe for free… or not. It’s all the same.
Recommended reading
‘Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy’ by Robert P. Murphy
‘No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority’ by Lysander Spooner
‘For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto’ by Murray N. Rothbard
‘Power and Market: Government and the Economy’ by Murray N. Rothbard
‘Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market’ by Murray N. Rothbard
‘The Enterprise Of Law: Justice Without The State’ by Bruce L. Benson
‘The Machinery of Freedom: A Guide to Radical Capitalism’ by David Friedman
Essays on voluntaryism by Sotiris Rex
The dumbest objections against statelessness [series] & why we get government
A collection of straw men, non-sequiturs, false dichotomies, false equivalents, false attributions, appeals to tradition, appeals to emotion, appeals to incredulity, and simple odes to sheer stupidity.
This is so well said. Whether the warlords in question are internalized into the state apparatus or externalized as some outside boogieman, their cartoon is to further centralize control...
"Let’s be real here: warlords do the government’s bidding. Warlords and manufactured boogeymen alike keep the government relevant in populations that don’t really see the necessity for a government; populations that aren’t obsessed with empire, statehood, and self-righteously enforcing their brand of “morality” onto others (e.g. Western and Eastern populations). Warlords work for the government, either directly or indirectly, much like Hamas is an Israeli government asset. Every single thing Hamas has ever done resulted in more powers, more funding, and more victimhood privilege for the Israeli government. Go figure."
"No, this means that the existence of a government apparatus cannot guarantee you protection from warlords taking over."
Hear, hear!
I don't agree with your take on medieval church but where you are undeniably right is, the new religion, though I'd call it a multicult. Statism is definitely a big part of it, with all the old trappings of human sacrifice, slavery and so on.