Somali Law | Hacker News Reader

Somali Law

daviddfriedman.com

105 pointsTomte28 comments

Note that this is just one chapter in the larger book, "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours":

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_sy...

You might also compare this with the traditional system of distributed dispute resolution that held sway in Iceland at the time of the sagas. While quite different cultures, many similar solutions and incentives acted to minimize violence between familial groups. In that case the system failed when it fell out of decentralization and into control of a sufficiently small elite for them to become a defacto government, but it took 300 years to reach that failure case.

A very high-level summary: https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-gover...

"Machinery of Freedom" by the same author: http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

The chapter "Private law enforcement, medieval iceland, and libertarianism" is specifically about Iceland.

A fantastic book in general for those interested in political theory.

Not just similar to the Icelandic system: "26 This is the second striking similarity we have observed between Somali and ancient Irish law. The Celts, in the course of their history, occupied many different places, but it is hard to believe that they got as far as the horn of Africa, so the similarities are presumably examples of parallel legal evolution—or, just possibly, common descent from some legal system in the very distant past. For a third similarity, consider that a favorite sport of both cultures appears to have been cattle raiding—in the Somali case camels."

Somali Law (daviddfriedman.com) 70 points by Tomte 8 hours ago | past | web | 9 comments

Somali Law (daviddfriedman.com) 2 points by Tomte 41 days ago | past | web

Somali Law (daviddfriedman.com) 4 points by Tomte 75 days ago | past | web

Somali Law (daviddfriedman.com) 1 point by Tomte 116 days ago | past | web

It would be interesting to look at the distribution of points for articles that get submitted multiple times -- there's obviously a lot of variability! I'd expect it to look vaguely power-law-shaped, because articles that get upvoted more have more opportunity to garner upvotes, so random noise can catapult something to prominence if the article itself is interesting.

</small-n-speculation>

Resubmissions are allowed and there's even a thing for moderators to automate it hours or maybe days later on submissions they like.

not saying it isn't, just a comment I think people could be interested in

Yes, but it's the first (or second?) time anyone could actually see that. This article triggered some strange bug in HN's software, so that only I could see it on the /new page. 'dang asked me repeatedly to resubmit.

Probably second time, because of the four points above. The two points are the mod's autovote for invited submissions.

I am sure this has a lot of appeal for libertarians. One has to ask, though, can this system of law support a high-GNP economy, with high-efficiency complex interactions among strangers.

Somalia is often brought up by Libertarians as an example of a distributed legal system. The argument is that Somalia has done better than their African peers over recent years...no idea if that is still the case or not.

IME it's far more often brought up as a cautionary example by "antilibertarians". As in, if we limit the authority of some official government agency in some small fashion, we'll soon live in a poor violent sub-Saharan hellhole. (Not my characterization, but rather that of the antilibertarians.)

>"Somalia is often brought up by Libertarians as an example of a distributed legal system."

It was inevitable, as "Somalia" has been "thrown" at libertarian-type ideas for a very long time. Somalia is a failed state, yet served as some sort of "A-ha! Gotcha, silly Libertarian!" type of retort to almost all suggestions of a stateless, or limited-state society.

It's kind of missing the point of the article to reduce it back to an American point of view. Maybe we should try to respect and understand the differences instead of trying to "fix" other countries and gauge them at the sole metric of profit.

He didn't say anything about America; he was trying to understand whether it could support a high-GNP economy, and wasn't suggesting a "fix".

I share his curiousity; would an Icelandic or Somali type government, given sufficient natural resources (and relative peace) be able to do something like develop a space program?

I suppose yes. But maybe it would come later, when the general level of wealth/technology is higher.

Most people want to have a car for themself, before they want to pay for some one else flying to the moon ... So by the time of the real landing ... it might have been approved, too. At least in the US. In the SU they probably would have prefered different things, like toilet paper, first. (there is an old joke in my area in eastern-germany from that time, which pretty much says that ... but its not really translatable)

> But maybe it would come later, when the general level of wealth/technology is higher.

Sure, that's the whole question. In a place like ye olde Icelande or Ye New Somalia, could the economy develop to the point of a space program being achievable?

I think so. But they don't really have to do it alone.

Even today many nations join forces for space missions. The ISS is the best example. Or CERN. Such big projects just require people who want to do it ... and funding. I think it doesn't really matter if the funding comes from one or a few big pots ... or many small ones (aka crowdfunding)

But that's an American point of view. Why is success only viewed as having a high-GNP economy and being able to land on the moon ? I would be more interested in seeing what other things could come out of such a country if the EU/US would stop trying to influence them (as in the article). Maybe they would be able to achieve lasting peace. A much longer lifespan trough healthier lives. Or a much better symbiosis with our habitat.

"That's an American point of view. We should judge them on how they ~commune~ with ~nature~, living in symbiosis with their habitat."

Yeah... only americans want high-GNP, access to technology, clean water, etc.. Everyone else just wants to live in peace in the jungle like a good noble savage.

Are you going to move there and be part of this great experiment to live in symbiosis with our habitat? If so then great, I advise you to move there now, make relationships on the ground and see what sort of economy, government, and legal situation the people near you want to experience. If you get a lot of support for your habitat symbiosis project, I'm sure it'll do great. Otherwise, maybe you shouldn't assume life is more complicated than it is and that everyone wants the nice things you get to take for granted.

Are you reading this forum on a Somali-designed computer, or do you believe that industrial-level productivity is a worthwhile goal?

While I enjoy reading HN I don't think that it's the pinnacle of civilization. Also it doesn't always make me happy.

In retrospect I'm not even sure how much nature has irremediably been destroyed to produce all the components that we use today. Is it really worth cannibalizing our planet in the pursuit of infinite growth ?

No, and I'm sure we'll realise that when it's all too late.

I'm not sure, and neither is the guy who's writing this book! However, he has given some thought to the matter and written a very interesting article about how such a thing might or might not work:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/A...

That's wonderful. He argues that libertarian societies will evolve from consumer free choice of law enforcement, toward a situation where all providers collude to form a single set of laws that is convenient for them to provide.

Oligopoly is apparently the natural order of things.

> I am sure this has a lot of appeal for libertarians.

It shouldn't: "a wealthy man is required, with detailed legal rules, to share his wealth with neighbors and relatives". That is libertarian horror story #1.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com