somalia = libertarian paradise? wtf

[Paulfan05]

This is the liberal talking point being pushed around some blogs, but isn't Somalia more like anarchy? They even think libertarians want no police, I still want police, what about you?

[weslinder]

Somalia is ruled by tribal despots. It's a long way from libertarianism.

[heavenlyboy34]

This is the liberal talking point being pushed around some blogs, but isn't Somalia more like anarchy? They even think libertarians want no police, I still want police, what about you?

No police, only private security firms. Somalia is not anarchic in the anarcho-libertarian sense-they lack individual liberties and still have a vestige of a state.

Read these for better info-
http://www.mises.org/story/2066
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/kwiatkowski2.html

and do a search for "Somalia" on lewrockwell.com's search engine for yet more :cool::D

[RedStripe]

Somalia is an interesting place. Most of the people who use 'lol somalia' as an attack on libertarianism are really just attacking those of us who believe that the state should be abolished altogether.

Somalia is actually better off now (based on the vast majority of metrics for standard of living) than it was under a central government up until the early 90s. Lots of the conflict in Somalia has been due to attempts by western powers and neighboring governments to install a central government in Somalia over the past ~10 years. Perhaps the only the Islamic Courts Union is perhaps the only true government-like entity to spring up spontaneously, and it of course is just a network of courts that use Islamic law to resolve conflicts. They are armed primarily to fight off Ethiopian military adventures in their land.

Sure, it's still Somalia. It's a third-world, African nation. But if you watch videos of people visiting Somalia, you will see that it is a relatively well-functioning society. White westerners certainly need to hire bodyguards to protect them while they visit (relatively cheap), but I've seen plenty of videos of market places, cell phone towers, and make-shift ports (most of the infrastructure has been destroyed). The point is - people can survive without a central state. In fact, they can have a reasonably safe and plentiful society (by African standards). They are better off now than before they had a government. Their biggest challenge is dealing with attempts by other countries to impose a central government and the US's attempts to brand them a "terrorist" state. It's not chaos over there. It's only chaos when someone tries to create a government, and people resist. Out in the countryside, it is fairly peaceful, and people live by their own customary tribal law that has been studied extensively and is quite interesting. People use social insurance via family ties and tribal relationships to resolve disputes, provide protection, and other services that might be half-heartedly provided by a central state, but are free to come and go as they please and are pretty much free to do as they please.

It's funny that leftists would make fun of Somalia when they themselves go on and on about the horrific after-effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism, yet want to blame Somalia's problems on the lack of western-imposed government and ignore the problems caused by the west's attempts to install a central government there! I'd rather live in Somalia than a lot of other countries in Africa, and to make fun of Somalia as an example of a stateless society (which it isn't truly) is to claim that all governments are like the North Korean government. I'd rather live in Somalia, or a stateless society, than an authoritarian system ANY DAY.... and an authoritarian brave new world is what we are marching towards this very moment.

[thx1149]

This is the liberal talking point being pushed around some blogs, but isn't Somalia more like anarchy? They even think libertarians want no police, I still want police, what about you?

Definitely closer to anarchist than libertarian, and not overly paradise like. The anarchists point to Somalia because in some areas of the country after the government fell things improved. The education and healthcare systems improved. Businesses came in and competed to provide services to the people, causing prices to drop to extremely low levels in several industries. Some tribal courts were kept active by the people and financed by local businesses which saw it to their benefit to have a justice system in the populated areas.

There is a lot wrong as well, but the fact that things got better without any government is what people are pointing to. Even a libertarian or austrian economist can appreciate how when there was no government in the way prices dropped and conditions got better. I don't think anyone is saying we should use Somalia as a role model, but instead that we can learn something from what has gone on there over the years.

[mport1]

This is the liberal talking point being pushed around some blogs, but isn't Somalia more like anarchy? They even think libertarians want no police, I still want police, what about you?

I don't want government police. I'd prefer to get rid of the state altogether and have a free market.

[dannno]

Somalia is an interesting place. Most of the people who use 'lol somalia' as an attack on libertarianism are really just attacking those of us who believe that the state should be abolished altogether.

Somalia is actually better off now (based on the vast majority of metrics for standard of living) than it was under a central government up until the early 90s. Lots of the conflict in Somalia has been due to attempts by western powers and neighboring governments to install a central government in Somalia over the past ~10 years. Perhaps the only the Islamic Courts Union is perhaps the only true government-like entity to spring up spontaneously, and it of course is just a network of courts that use Islamic law to resolve conflicts. They are armed primarily to fight off Ethiopian military adventures in their land.

Sure, it's still Somalia. It's a third-world, African nation. But if you watch videos of people visiting Somalia, you will see that it is a relatively well-functioning society. White westerners certainly need to hire bodyguards to protect them while they visit (relatively cheap), but I've seen plenty of videos of market places, cell phone towers, and make-shift ports (most of the infrastructure has been destroyed). The point is - people can survive without a central state. In fact, they can have a reasonably safe and plentiful society (by African standards). They are better off now than before they had a government. Their biggest challenge is dealing with attempts by other countries to impose a central government and the US's attempts to brand them a "terrorist" state. It's not chaos over there. It's only chaos when someone tries to create a government, and people resist. Out in the countryside, it is fairly peaceful, and people live by their own customary tribal law that has been studied extensively and is quite interesting. People use social insurance via family ties and tribal relationships to resolve disputes, provide protection, and other services that might be half-heartedly provided by a central state, but are free to come and go as they please and are pretty much free to do as they please.

It's funny that leftists would make fun of Somalia when they themselves go on and on about the horrific after-effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism, yet want to blame Somalia's problems on the lack of western-imposed government and ignore the problems caused by the west's attempts to install a central government there! I'd rather live in Somalia than a lot of other countries in Africa, and to make fun of Somalia as an example of a stateless society (which it isn't truly) is to claim that all governments are like the North Korean government. I'd rather live in Somalia, or a stateless society, than an authoritarian system ANY DAY.... and an authoritarian brave new world is what we are marching towards this very moment.


Thanks for the post.

[Elwar]

The Somalis seem to like it there.

[Conza88]

Libertarianism and Austrian Economics is gaining ground remarkably amongst the switched on youth... you've got to try demean/attack it some how.

[mediahasyou]

:rolleyes:They most likely got that idea from this board.

[BuddyRey]

YouTube - True News 18: Somalia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI)

[idiom]

Anarchy and/or tribalism it turn out is only the second worst form of government. 'Scientific Socialism' actually managed to be worse.

[Smoke the Liberty Tree]

Somalia is an interesting place. Most of the people who use 'lol somalia' as an attack on libertarianism are really just attacking those of us who believe that the state should be abolished altogether.

Somalia is actually better off now (based on the vast majority of metrics for standard of living) than it was under a central government up until the early 90s. Lots of the conflict in Somalia has been due to attempts by western powers and neighboring governments to install a central government in Somalia over the past ~10 years. Perhaps the only the Islamic Courts Union is perhaps the only true government-like entity to spring up spontaneously, and it of course is just a network of courts that use Islamic law to resolve conflicts. They are armed primarily to fight off Ethiopian military adventures in their land.

Sure, it's still Somalia. It's a third-world, African nation. But if you watch videos of people visiting Somalia, you will see that it is a relatively well-functioning society. White westerners certainly need to hire bodyguards to protect them while they visit (relatively cheap), but I've seen plenty of videos of market places, cell phone towers, and make-shift ports (most of the infrastructure has been destroyed). The point is - people can survive without a central state. In fact, they can have a reasonably safe and plentiful society (by African standards). They are better off now than before they had a government. Their biggest challenge is dealing with attempts by other countries to impose a central government and the US's attempts to brand them a "terrorist" state. It's not chaos over there. It's only chaos when someone tries to create a government, and people resist. Out in the countryside, it is fairly peaceful, and people live by their own customary tribal law that has been studied extensively and is quite interesting. People use social insurance via family ties and tribal relationships to resolve disputes, provide protection, and other services that might be half-heartedly provided by a central state, but are free to come and go as they please and are pretty much free to do as they please.

It's funny that leftists would make fun of Somalia when they themselves go on and on about the horrific after-effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism, yet want to blame Somalia's problems on the lack of western-imposed government and ignore the problems caused by the west's attempts to install a central government there! I'd rather live in Somalia than a lot of other countries in Africa, and to make fun of Somalia as an example of a stateless society (which it isn't truly) is to claim that all governments are like the North Korean government. I'd rather live in Somalia, or a stateless society, than an authoritarian system ANY DAY.... and an authoritarian brave new world is what we are marching towards this very moment.

Somalia is known to harbor many terrorist cells. We have troops stationed in Ethiopia who supply logistic supports to their troops who are trying to restore order to the country. Although yes it is in the US's plans to set up a democracy their, it is mostly to keep an eye on the Islamic radicalism that is spreading quickly through Somalia. Due to our messing with their affairs in the 90's it is a great spot for terrorist cells to recruit new people who have an already burgeoning hate for the West and our culture. And yes it is in Chaos over their. Just not the kind of Chaos most of us think of (everyone running around screaming, guns, etc.).

[RedStripe]

Somalia is known to harbor many terrorist cells. We have troops stationed in Ethiopia who supply logistic supports to their troops who are trying to restore order to the country. Although yes it is in the US's plans to set up a democracy their, it is mostly to keep an eye on the Islamic radicalism that is spreading quickly through Somalia. Due to our messing with their affairs in the 90's it is a great spot for terrorist cells to recruit new people who have an already burgeoning hate for the West and our culture. And yes it is in Chaos over their. Just not the kind of Chaos most of us think of (everyone running around screaming, guns, etc.).

They are not "terrorists" in the sense that they are going to come over to the United States and blow up car bombs. They are followers of Islam who have become attracted to the radical ideology due to our interventions into their country, and our support for their enemies. If we left them alone and were nice to them, there wouldn't be this problem.

[thx1149]

Anarchy and/or tribalism it turn out is only the second worst form of government. 'Scientific Socialism' actually managed to be worse.

Anarchy or tribalism is the second worst? I'm surprised to hear such a comment on a board like this. I would think both could be great depending on the form they take. It also depends on the size of the area practicing it. Personally, I believe anarchy should, in a sense, be the unattainable goal of every libertarian. In order for it to work at scale individuals need to be socially and morally responsible. That makes it impossible, at least at this point in history. Still, anarchism is one of the few forms of government that places value on the individual rather than the collective, and I'm pretty surprised by such a comment on a mostly libertarian-minded forum.

I really hope you will elaborate on your comment. What is wrong with tribal systems or anarchy? Why do you think they are so bad?

[Feenix566]

Anarchists think we don't need a government. Libertarians think the purpose of government is to defend the civil rights of the people.

Societies succeed economically to the extent to which they enforce civil rights, especially the right to property ownership. Many leftist liberal policies actually take an active role in violating the property rights of the people. If we're faced with a choice between a leftist government that violates our rights intentionally, and no government, many of us would choose no government. But this is a false dichotomy. There's no reason why we can't establish a government that enforces our rights. That's the libertarian position.

[mport1]

There's no reason why we can't establish a government that enforces our rights.

Sure there is. A government by its very nature must infringe on our rights. It makes no sense to say that we need to establish a monopoly organization who has the ability to initiate force and violate our rights to protect our rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

Anarchists think we don't need a government. Libertarians think the purpose of government is to defend the civil rights of the people.

Societies succeed economically to the extent to which they enforce civil rights, especially the right to property ownership. Many leftist liberal policies actually take an active role in violating the property rights of the people. If we're faced with a choice between a leftist government that violates our rights intentionally, and no government, many of us would choose no government. But this is a false dichotomy. There's no reason why we can't establish a government that enforces our rights. That's the libertarian position.

That's the Libertarian position :p, not the libertarian position. BIG difference. :cool: I wonder what you read that led you to the incorrect conclusion you've reached? :confused:

[Feenix566]

Sure there is. A government by its very nature must infringe on our rights. It makes no sense to say that we need to establish a monopoly organization who has the ability to initiate force and violate our rights to protect our rights.

Government is whoever has the most ability to inflict violence. Whether that's a group of elected politicians who follow a Constitution or a band of thugs, either way, whoever has the most ability to inflict violence IS the government. A government's sovereignty extends so far as its ability to inflict violence and hence to enforce its rules. Government is monopolistic by its nature. Two organizations cannot possibly both have the most ability to inflict violence in a given area. That's logically impossible. When two organizations are competing to see who has the most ability to inflict voilence in an area, that's called war. When the competition is over, there is a winner, and the winner becomes the government.

No matter what, there will always be a government. Even a man living alone on an island is his own government. He has more ability to inflict violence than anyone else, and hence he is sovereign. No matter where you go or what conditions prevail, there will always be one person or group of people who have the most ability to inflict violence.

The question is not whether or not this group exists. It always will. The question is, what's the best government that can exist, and how do we get it? The answer is that the ideal form of government is whatever form does the best job of enforcing civil rights.

Somalia's government is the local warlords and their soldiers / mercenaries.

[thx1149]

Anarchists think we don't need a government. Libertarians think the purpose of government is to defend the civil rights of the people.

Societies succeed economically to the extent to which they enforce civil rights, especially the right to property ownership. Many leftist liberal policies actually take an active role in violating the property rights of the people. If we're faced with a choice between a leftist government that violates our rights intentionally, and no government, many of us would choose no government. But this is a false dichotomy. There's no reason why we can't establish a government that enforces our rights. That's the libertarian position.

What you speak of, as others have pointed out, is just one position. Libertarianism doesn't really have much in the way of core tenets. Instead it has a collection of loosely defined axioms about small government and liberty. And so, libertarians as a whole can disagree on nearly everything except for the general feel of those axioms. I think this is why Ayn Rand was so anti-libertarian. Her objectivist philosophy had a deep foundation. The conclusions come from drawn out arguments. To accept objectivism is to accept much more than liberty.

My point is, what you are saying is not "the" libertarian position, but just "a" libertarian position. I strongly disagree, but I am very glad to see any discussion of these things. I don't want government because I believe it will protect my liberties. I believe it may very well have the opposite effect. Instead I see it as an imperfect necessary evil. Anarchism, to me, is the ideal, perhaps unattainable, perhaps very far down the road. Anarchism without socially and morally responsible individuals is problematic, and so we need a small form of government to provide basic regulation and law. This is just my take. Just yet another libertarian perspective.

I think a lot of people around here seem to have very twisted ideas about what anarchism is. It comes in dozens of forms and has quite a lot of thought behind it. A common theme is the opposition to hierarchy. Creating a government can mean giving up some of your right to self determination. At the same time most anarchists have no problem with voluntarily giving up some rights. So, an anarchist who chooses to form or live in a society that has some hierarchy isn't necessarily a contradiction. What I'm trying to point out here is that not all anarchists are against all rules and order. Working with other people commonly involves creating rules and hierarchy. The idea is often to keep people having power over others at a minimum, and also to keep such arrangements as voluntary with provisions that allow the individual to leave if they feel it no longer is working for them. I only speak for myself, and I'm certain others will disagree with how I present everything. If anyone is interested I definitely recommend reading the Anarchist Theory FAQ to get a better idea of what anarchism is about:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

[powerofreason]

I keep hearing this falsehood that libertarianism and anarchy are two completely different things. Lew Rockwell is an anarchist yet he calls himself a libertarian. Pure libertarianism and anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism to be more specific) are one in the same.

[OhioMichael]

Somalia is an interesting place. Most of the people who use 'lol somalia' as an attack on libertarianism are really just attacking those of us who believe that the state should be abolished altogether.

Somalia is actually better off now (based on the vast majority of metrics for standard of living) than it was under a central government up until the early 90s. Lots of the conflict in Somalia has been due to attempts by western powers and neighboring governments to install a central government in Somalia over the past ~10 years. Perhaps the only the Islamic Courts Union is perhaps the only true government-like entity to spring up spontaneously, and it of course is just a network of courts that use Islamic law to resolve conflicts. They are armed primarily to fight off Ethiopian military adventures in their land.

Sure, it's still Somalia. It's a third-world, African nation. But if you watch videos of people visiting Somalia, you will see that it is a relatively well-functioning society. White westerners certainly need to hire bodyguards to protect them while they visit (relatively cheap), but I've seen plenty of videos of market places, cell phone towers, and make-shift ports (most of the infrastructure has been destroyed). The point is - people can survive without a central state. In fact, they can have a reasonably safe and plentiful society (by African standards). They are better off now than before they had a government. Their biggest challenge is dealing with attempts by other countries to impose a central government and the US's attempts to brand them a "terrorist" state. It's not chaos over there. It's only chaos when someone tries to create a government, and people resist. Out in the countryside, it is fairly peaceful, and people live by their own customary tribal law that has been studied extensively and is quite interesting. People use social insurance via family ties and tribal relationships to resolve disputes, provide protection, and other services that might be half-heartedly provided by a central state, but are free to come and go as they please and are pretty much free to do as they please.

It's funny that leftists would make fun of Somalia when they themselves go on and on about the horrific after-effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism, yet want to blame Somalia's problems on the lack of western-imposed government and ignore the problems caused by the west's attempts to install a central government there! I'd rather live in Somalia than a lot of other countries in Africa, and to make fun of Somalia as an example of a stateless society (which it isn't truly) is to claim that all governments are like the North Korean government. I'd rather live in Somalia, or a stateless society, than an authoritarian system ANY DAY.... and an authoritarian brave new world is what we are marching towards this very moment.

Sorry to copy, but this is an excellent post.

[powerofreason]

Government is whoever has the most ability to inflict violence. Whether that's a group of elected politicians who follow a Constitution or a band of thugs, either way, whoever has the most ability to inflict violence IS the government. A government's sovereignty extends so far as its ability to inflict violence and hence to enforce its rules. Government is monopolistic by its nature. Two organizations cannot possibly both have the most ability to inflict violence in a given area. That's logically impossible. When two organizations are competing to see who has the most ability to inflict voilence in an area, that's called war. When the competition is over, there is a winner, and the winner becomes the government.

No matter what, there will always be a government. Even a man living alone on an island is his own government. He has more ability to inflict violence than anyone else, and hence he is sovereign. No matter where you go or what conditions prevail, there will always be one person or group of people who have the most ability to inflict violence.

The question is not whether or not this group exists. It always will. The question is, what's the best government that can exist, and how do we get it? The answer is that the ideal form of government is whatever form does the best job of enforcing civil rights.

Somalia's government is the local warlords and their soldiers / mercenaries.

I'll take a Somalian mini-government over the US govt any day. The Somalian strongmen only demand about 5% tax tops. Compare that to taxes in the land of the free *hearty laugh*

As for there will always be a government, thats just not true. I can give examples from history:

Medieval Ireland: Anarchic. Very successful society, perhaps the most advanced and prosperous in Europe.

Iceland (around year 1000 maybe): Almost completely anarchic, they had a system of private law which lasted about 300 years. Mind you these people were your typical brutal barbarians. How long did the American republic last before descending into tyranny? Less than 100 years imo.

"Wild" West: Government existed in name only. Lower per capita crime rate than the east coast. Private arbitration.

Somalia: No central government. Vast improvements in standard of living after Barre's regime was brought down. US and UN continue to cause violence there as the various "warlords" compete to own the new government and thus be able to continue their crimes of looting and killing in a legitimized way. Private law via the Xeer.

* Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?
* Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
* Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.
* Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.
* Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
* Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
* Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
* Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
* Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
* Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
* Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
* TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
* Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.

[idiom]

Anarchy or tribalism is the second worst? I'm surprised to hear such a comment on a board like this. I would think both could be great depending on the form they take. It also depends on the size of the area practicing it. Personally, I believe anarchy should, in a sense, be the unattainable goal of every libertarian. In order for it to work at scale individuals need to be socially and morally responsible. That makes it impossible, at least at this point in history. Still, anarchism is one of the few forms of government that places value on the individual rather than the collective, and I'm pretty surprised by such a comment on a mostly libertarian-minded forum.

I really hope you will elaborate on your comment. What is wrong with tribal systems or anarchy? Why do you think they are so bad?

What is in Somalia now is an improvement over what was there before, but what was there before was one of the worst possible forms of government.

When the Vietnamese communists invaded Cambodia and stopped the Khmer Rouge genocide, the situation in Cambodia improved markedly. Does that mean we should all hope to be invaded by Vietnamese communists?

[Minarchy4Sale]

No police, only private security firms. Somalia is not anarchic in the anarcho-libertarian sense-they lack individual liberties and still have a vestige of a state.

Read these for better info-
http://www.mises.org/story/2066
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/kwiatkowski2.html

and do a search for "Somalia" on lewrockwell.com's search engine for yet more :cool::D

please. Somalia is as close to an anarcho-libertarian society as has ever existed. The problem is that ALL power vacuums rapidly evolve into rule by strongmen. There is always someone willing to brutalize someone else for what they have or to gain power over them, and there is always people willing to serve the strongmen. Always.

[idiom]

5% 'tax' not for roads, or utilities, or courts, just 'protection'. Protection from what? From not paying the tax.

Yay Liberty!

[heavenlyboy34]

please. Somalia is as close to an anarcho-libertarian society as has ever existed. The problem is that ALL power vacuums rapidly evolve into rule by strongmen. There is always someone willing to brutalize someone else for what they have or to gain power over them, and there is always people willing to serve the strongmen. Always.

You forgot to address the points brought up in the articles mentioned. Big fail, but try again!

[Flirple]

YouTube - True News 18: Somalia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI)

Everyone needs to watch and spread this video!

[thx1149]

What is in Somalia now is an improvement over what was there before, but what was there before was one of the worst possible forms of government.

When the Vietnamese communists invaded Cambodia and stopped the Khmer Rouge genocide, the situation in Cambodia improved markedly. Does that mean we should all hope to be invaded by Vietnamese communists?

I agree with what you are saying, but you may be dodging the point a little. Things were bad there, and for many people still are bad. I think the more interesting thing here is how things changed. The way that many businesses came in with a lot of competition and built up infrastructure and charged really low rates for service provides some evidence for the effectiveness of free market principals. The way that people came together to organize other things such as the courts in some areas is another example. Nobody is saying things are perfect there. I think the big thing here is some evidence that even without government it is possible for much of society to keep functioning, and a demonstration that at least in the early stages, the free market principals are working.

[Conza88]

everyone needs to watch and spread this video!

qft!

[silverhawks]

This is the liberal talking point being pushed around some blogs, but isn't Somalia more like anarchy? They even think libertarians want no police, I still want police, what about you?

Saw this myself on a site yesterday, with a bunch of astonishingly ignorant liberals having a good laugh - not that they know anything about the present political situation in Somalia, they just think its a disease-ridden third world country with a lot of starving, desperate brown people...yet that doesn't seem to factor into the fact that they would use it as the backdrop to laugh at libertarians.

I'm sitting there wondering what kind of mindset does that - they think a country is in chaos, plagued by disease, civil war and death - but they're sitting there giggling away at it while praising Obama.

More and more, this kind of "liberal" to me means "fascist".

[Mesogen]

YouTube - REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0)

[Kraig]

This is the liberal talking point being pushed around some blogs, but isn't Somalia more like anarchy? They even think libertarians want no police, I still want police, what about you?

I don't want police!

[heavenlyboy34]

Everyone needs to watch and spread this video!

bump for an excellent vid! :cool::D:)

[Kraig]

That vid is just a hit piece. ...and aren't the warlords in somolia funded by governments?

[heavenlyboy34]

That vid is just a hit piece. ...and aren't the warlords in somolia funded by governments?

I've never seen any data to support that-quite the contrary, in fact. :)

[Kraig]

I've never seen any data to support that-quite the contrary, in fact. :)

You mean like this?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/527884/experts_say_us_funding_somali_warlords/index.html

[heavenlyboy34]

You mean like this?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/527884/experts_say_us_funding_somali_warlords/index.html

I'm aware that the US has tried to meddle with Somalia by propping up various warlords and unsavory characters (much to the U.S.'s shame), but I'm referring to warlords that spring up "naturally".

[idiom]

They are funded by 'taxes' as pointed out in the very helpful video.