Earlier this year the BBC did a series on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Somali state. (Gene Callahan held a prayer vigil for Siad Barre, I hear.) It just came to my attention, but better late than never:
Economists familiar with the Rothbardian tradition have taken the analysis even further, persuasively arguing that Somalia is much better without a state than it was with one. The standard statist put-down — “If you Rothbardians like anarchy so much, why don’t you move to Somalia?” — misses the point. The Rothbardian doesn’t claim that the absence of a state is a sufficient condition for bliss. Rather, the Rothbardian says that however prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an institution of organized violence and theft will only make things worse.