^I read the paper, I meant to say. Or about 75 percent of it.

I think Xeer law is just ingrained. And it makes complete sense to me that a society which has a) terrible experiences with law-from-above (both European and local), and b) a tradition of natural law by seniority would adopt and work well under a system like that. And the argument that LDCs can't do any better under centralized government is intoxicating.

I'm more interested in the c4ss et al. idea that this is an example some third world countries are setting for the first world. That an equivalent of natural law can be successful in developed countries where the problems with governmental law aren't immediately obvious (like they were in Somalia). You can mock the current "libertarian paradise" all you want but for those in power it is a paradise -- therein the problem. Etc.

My facebook pal is as libertarian as you can get. He believes firmly that government of the people by the people will happen economically -- markets can create functional private legal systems, and so on. Polycentric law. But Xeer law reminds me more of the sharia law, or more accurately Fiqh, which I can't see working in a developed country -- since the main reason Xeer/Fiqh works at all both in Somalia and (at times) in the Islamic world is that the entire societies in question share strong fundamental beliefs. Homogenous societies are on their way out.

Most people are willing to at least entertain thoughts of private, profit-based schooling and perhaps transportation. But eyebrows usually go up at the idea of law provided by anyone but The Man.

This is also interesting because what works for one should in theory work for another. If implemented well.