There was a really good comment the other day regarding Somalia, but searchyc isn't finding it.
Basically, there's actually some studies that suggest Somalia is doing _better_ under 'anarchy' than not. It's only after the UN stopped trying to impose a state that things started getting better.
http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf claims that Somalia's economic performance and standard of living "improved during its period of statelessness". Cautionary note: this paper was put out by a libertarian think tank; I don't know enough about their level of integrity to know whether that's worrying.
The main takeaway from all this is probably that a sufficiently bad government can be even worse than anarchy. But it also suggests that Somalia was in such a terrible state before its government collapsed completely that any troubles after that have a plausible explanation other than the evils of anarchy.
So, "Welcome to Somalia" was arguably unfair. On the other hand, there don't seem to be a lot of better examples of anarchies available for inspection...
I think the real test of whether anarchy is preferable to stable government ('anti-competitive' or not), is whether Somalia is doing better than the United States. A perfectly fair comparison would require Somalia to be under anarchy for the same number of years as the U.S. has been a democracy, but presumably you could pick younger democracies for an easier comparison.
I think you will find that:
1) Anarchies, almost by definition, spill into neighboring countries in the form of violence and/or refugess. This is the reason the U.N. intervenes in the first place.
2) A system of governance imposed by outsiders may be worse than anarchy, but self-governance, given a decade or more, will result in conditions better than anarchy. Indeed, I believe that left alone, an anarchy over time will develop into some form of stable government. Usually it's a dictatorship but there is a small chance it may be some form of self governance.
These are both as yet unproven claims based on my intuition of course. If someone has data to back these up or refute them, that would be really interesting.
Basically, there's actually some studies that suggest Somalia is doing _better_ under 'anarchy' than not. It's only after the UN stopped trying to impose a state that things started getting better.