0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
15 vizualizări3 pagini
This is an extended essay comprising of commentaries written against the viewpoint of libertarian outsiders expressing favoritism for the current status quo in Somalia.
Titlu original
A Critique of Fringe Libertarianism in Relation to Somalia
This is an extended essay comprising of commentaries written against the viewpoint of libertarian outsiders expressing favoritism for the current status quo in Somalia.
This is an extended essay comprising of commentaries written against the viewpoint of libertarian outsiders expressing favoritism for the current status quo in Somalia.
A Critique of Fringe Libertarianism in Relation to Somalia
-Extended Version of the Self-Defeating Premise of Libertarian Fringe Ideologies with Somalia as a Situational Backdrop- Omar Alansari-Kreger
Allegations that are purported to be true dont actually make it so when reviewing the implications that stem directly out of the ground reality. The old constitution of Somalia was situated on secular principles that championed notions of representative democracy imported from Western influences. In this respect, the Somali Constitution is merely based on an abstract variable that is used to govern a nation with modifications that domesticate the same legal document for governance. Based on the inclinations of the anarchist, if there are no institutions there will be no state sponsored oppression? Ironically that worldview is seemingly that simple. That almost seems to be the primary contention at hand. Technically that is true, but oppression spells out a vice that pervasively exports itself as a corruptive tendency of human governance. Say the institutions disappear, that puts local authority figures in a position where they can just as easily impose their own tyranny and eventually that becomes institutionalized, in nature, to a certain degree.
The fact of the matter is that statements and statistics can be challenging irrespective of the angel in which it is presented. By championing an economic worldview that neatly aligns with the proponents of the Austrian School of Economics, largely spearheaded by Ludwig Von Mises among others, that perception is not conveyed in a way that balances an independently derived principle because there is a desire for the implementation of an exclusive vision. Irrespective of what the data states, it cannot be assumed that any anti-anarchist position supports the old order that had once governed a unified Somalia. The faults and many errors of the previous regime brought about the disintegration of the Somali State which has been infused by clan based tribal sectarianism. When one tribe takes over a nation by storm a representative government is at hand which is why the old regime of Said Barrie fell through the cracks. A predatory state is not just a phenomenon of a federally oriented government. The same tendencies will reemerge in some kind of libertarian paradise because in that world the weak truly die off and the strong soak up all the spoils. In such a world there isnt an independent body within the framework of the state in which measures of 2
transparency can be augmented. Tyranny is tyranny no matter what worldview tries to decipher it. The predatory state breaks itself apart in a fringe libertarian society at the micro level putting populations at the mercy of those localized figures that horde and manipulate all the resources. How does that not compare to what Somalia has become to date? Currently, there hasnt been a single nation or civilization in history that has successfully thrived with the absence of government. No government leads to anarchy, anarchy leads to dog-eat-dog survival, and that degenerates into a lone game of total survival that thrives of remnants of what once was. In that type of world loyalties are indeed given to the individual bottom line because if that defaults the lone individual is assured a slow and gradual death combined with extrication from its mainstream. Libertarianism may be the maximization of individualized liberty, but unfortunately that usually transfers over into the maximization of the bottom line and civilizations cant thrive when rivalries are consumed and amplified with division, separation, and conquest all deriving from individualized interest. Continuation of Additional Commentary This essay article was freely composed with Somalia in mind and I dont want to deviate too far from that topic; after all, it is not my intention to argumentatively debate the supporting pillars that establish your corresponding worldview. It is hard to believe that anyone has time for that anymore. Social transition is either sudden or drastic; usually when the latter follows suit anarchy descends into the social arena regardless of the ideological overtones that are at odds with each other. Once the dust settles order reestablishes itself; however, how it possible to have an anarchistic society once a dialectic of order resituates itself as a precedent only to be seen as the reoccurrence of regulatory societal rigor? A rule derives from a law and social adherence is expected and that is why institutions are formed which ensure compliance to a societys many rules or laws. Populations are usually coerced into some kind of following and that creates an order which manifests into divisions of power which explains the actual origins of institutions. Is organized anarchy really capable of evading those perpetually reoccurring cycles that have made civilization possible? In an effort to return to the greater subject matter at hand it is no secret that Somalia is a regionally compartmentalized nation; Somaliland, Puntland, and Somalia are the three major regions in Somalia and the disintegration of Somali statehood has created three autonomous nations that are largely ignored by the international community. It is unfortunate, nations that are not officially recognized as sovereign states are ignored simply because they have not managed to achieve statehood when 3
they have already done so; it is that reason why these breakaway regions are deprived of resources which undermines their national survival respectively (Somaliland stands as a pristine example). Somalia is a nation that is sparsely populated outside of the major urban and coastal areas; the further inland an outsider travels the less activity and infrastructure they are able to observe which describes why these areas are so easy to control. For example, a single militia outpost can exert authority and control a wide area. Besides, many clans and tribes are firmly situated in the rural areas and as a result they fall under their subsequent control which attributes to the stability seen in the countryside. Of course that paradigm can be applied to just about any developing or war ravaged nation. Finally, the idea of comparing the United States and Somalia wasnt intended to stress on the literal structural differences and commonalities that make them nations respectively. The big picture punch line was to focus on the constitutional parameters that make the United States and Somalia nations because both were federally formed with a strong constitutional tradition; pardon the repetitive pun. Yes, Somalia has recovered and stabilized since the early 1990s, but normalcy HAS NOT been reestablished in the sense that the Somalis retain the ability to prevent illegal activities in their own territorial waters. That is why a nations territorial waters stand as the common heritage of a sovereign people even if they are partitioned by tribal affinities or affiliations. Somalia is definitely no Liberia or Sierra Leone, but it is definitely worlds away from transforming itself into a South Africa were the nations livelihood is revitalized under a modern arm of reform and transition. Long term peace can revitalize itself in a Somalia that is united under a non-aligned government that audits its political processes through checks, balances, and programs of integrative intertribal assimilation.