Hacker News Reader

Comment by SideburnsOfDoom | Hacker News Reader

And markets are doing great in failed / non-existent states, are they?

They aren't.

Only literal piracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_off_the_coast_of_Somali...

I don't think Somalia can properly be considered to have been stateless, but as you seem to think so, maybe you can explain why life expectancy, immunization, birth weight, infant mortality rate, maternal mortality rate, access to sanitation, access to at least one health facility, extreme poverty, access to radios, telephones, and TVs, and fatality due to measles all improved after the fall of Barre's government?[0]

Somali privacy is extremely profitable because of the geography and shipping lanes of the Gulf of Aden, and the pirates certainly operate on a market system, even if they don't respect outsiders property rights. It's not like the US government does either. The people who have their homes destroyed by the US military have no more chance of getting compensation than the owners of cargo hijacked by Somali pirates. If we also consider governments use of asset forfeiture, taxation, fines, licence fees, etc. I think it becomes a little ridiculous to focus on the Somali pirates. There are more piracy in the Gulf of Guinea anyway, so why single out Somalia?

[0]: https://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

> the pirates certainly operate on a market system

So you're a fan of the market for armed robbery at sea, because it's better when states get out of the way. Got it.

No, I'm not a fan of something just because it's a market. A market is a morally neutral concept.

I don't think Somalia is an example of when states get out of the way. I think it's an example of one extremely bad state collapsing and being replaced by many less (but still very) bad states fighting each other in a civil war. It was however a significant net improvement, and I'm glad Barre's regime collapsed, even if it lead to more piracy.

The idea, which you claim to hold, that "the state should play any role in making markets" means that markets will work best when there is no state, no rules. No way to enforce contracts, just force. You can claim that failed states are not a good example of this all you like, or that baboons trade therefor states are bad or whatever, it's still a ludicrous set of claims, with no logical structure.

You seem to be here to push a fringe ideology. I respect your ability to talk details about this ideology, but frankly, fluency doesn't make it any less absurd and counterfactual. I refer you to examples above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com