"We have anarchist societies with “competing governments”, where the government does not do what it should (police, army and courrts), and in these regions we have civil war and chaos; Somalia, Palestine, lots of nations in Africa, etc. "
How do ancaps answer this argument?
I don’t classify myself as one, but there is a difference between what anarchy is (or is supposed to be) and mere chaos. A temporary absence of a central government does not an anarchy make, and several violent groups competing to become one either. Believing, that in countries fresh out of a civil war and collapse of a government will immediately arise a peaceful, voluntary society is to be more optimistic than the ancaps themselves. 
That is not to say, that there are not interesting developments in e.g. Somalia in the general direction of anarchy, but it is definitely not an example of one - and whether it will become one, only future can show.
I can’t find it with the search (which never seems to find anything I want!) but there was a 20odd page long thread perhaps a year ago called “Why Don’t We All Move to Somalia?” or something along those lines.
I suspect there are some good answers there if you can find it.
http://fee.org/media/video/stateless-in-somalia/
Better off since becoming stateless, better off than its neighbours. Only violence in the south around Mogadishu because of all the folks, usually foreign-backed, who want to reinstate the state.
Palestine is under occupation, its problem is therefore too much government, it does not qualify for any context of the “Somalia argument”.
How about this argument:
“Anarchy has been given hundreds of chances and failed every single time. Minarchy has only been given one chance (USA). We should give it more chances.”
That`s not an argument.
We know exactly what went wrong with the American minarchy, and how to solve the problem. If all new laws had to be approved by the supreme court, USA would never had become a fascist country.
That`s great then. I wish you luck.
The problem with that approach is to assume that differring branches of the same government are truly in ‘opposition’ to each other. While they may haggle over jurisdictional issues, scope of powers, over time they will generally agree they should both have more power, and more money, and more control over the lives of others.
If you believe that more division of power could save minarchy, what exactly is your argument against anarchy, which is about full division of power?
It seems to me you are caught in a contradiction.
Rearrange the bureaucracy. That’s it!
As someone already pointed out, chaos and anarchy in the libertarian sense are two different things. Unfortunately, when most people think anarchy they think chaos and so they look for chaotic civilizations that lack a central government and say “AHA! This must be what those crazy anarchists want to create.” I’m no anarchist but I know that the people who advocate anarchy don’t want chaos. Perhaps anarchists need a new word.
Secondly, I think people get so focused on systems that they forget about all the things that make systems work and influence the way systems function. People, geography, demographics, language, culture; all these things play into how any given system manifests itself. So, for instance, Italian fascism and German fascism were two very different things despite the fact that in many ways, they looked the same on paper. The people and the culture and the geography and demography changed the way both ultimately came to be.
What I’m saying is that American society, no matter what system you impose on it or build into it, will always have its own distinct interpretation of that system. So American anarchy, minarchy, socialism, communism, totalitarianism will all be different in certain ways than they would be if these systems were being practiced somewhere else. So, for that reason alone, I think it’s often silly to compare and contrast systems without comparing and contrasting societies, cultures, languages, demography, geography, history.
That isn’t really an argument, its an assertion that isn’t exactly true.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court world never approve a fascist law…
Give Somalia a chance. It is a small African country that is staring from a point of complete social breakdown and incredible poverty. Because central government has been so terrible, the folks there use their tribal system instead. They have in fact a complicated dispute resolution system. If one of the parties in a dispute is found guilty or can not pay restitution then that individual becomes a true outlaw.
I tire of hearing how bad it is in Somalia without a central government when the jealous central governments of the world constantly try to bring the blessings of central government to Somalia. The results are predictable, continued lack of capital and development. The results of their neighbors who get paid to do the dirty work are also predictable: More tyranny and less wealth.
I will offer this to all the pro-government dudes:
Let the current social system in Somalia run for 2 and 1/2 decades. If at the end of that time, Somalia is not in the top 5 wealthiest nations in Africa then you proved me wrong and I will not argue with the wish of the worlds nations to “Bring the Blessings of Concentrated Political Power” to Somalia. Also, please bring down all trade barriers with Somalia and the rest of the nations of Africa and PLEASE stop giving out foreign aid.
In an anarchy, what if the culprit does not agree to go to court, or which court that should put him on trial?
What if one court regards abortion murder and another court is pro choice? Isn’t it inevitable that the result will be chaos and civil war?
It would help the case for anarchy if there weren’t so many pirates. One of the biggest problems the country faces is that pirates use Somalia as a home base, raid outside of the borders, and come back. People inside have no incentive to stop them, and the victims of the piracy are of course going to ask the government they belong to to step in. Consequently, there is very motivation for foreign powers to try to exert control in Somalia. If an anarchistic police force would stop the pirates, it might succeed as an experiment. I’d be more likely to switch from minarchy to anarchy if it worked.
Superbly spoken!
All Somali individuals either belong to clan/tribe/family associations where select elders judge/arbitrate/moderate disputes or are outlaws. Outlaws are not part of the system and are treated harshly and are not dealt with under most circumstances. Many of the pirates are outlaws. Many of the Somali’s trade with the outlaws and even work for them. The members of these associations will use force against an outlaw if they deem fit.
As for the associations themselves. This is not unique but is working in Somalia. Many of these associations allow members to move among them so the associations are competing for members. If the associations have a dispute that crosses associations then they attempt to resolve the dispute among themselves. If that is not possible then they seek a third part to arbitrate the dispute. These processes apply to criminal violations as well as civil violations.
Think how much better this is than the insane court system in the USA where 9 people wearing ugly clothes approve every legislative action and now regulatory action by vote. The 9 people in the USA determined that CO2 is a pollutant?
to me it doesn’t seem like its a “problem the country faces” It seems to me that its a problem for boats sailing without protection in the waters around Somalia. I don’t know much about what the Pirates do on land, but my guess is that terrorizing the people of Somalia is not thier M.O. I am very interested in the topic of Somalia and plan on doing further reading; from what I gather, it seems like there is some good evidence for how a people can rebel against a foreign invader without a central gov’t.