At the risk of heading even further down this rabbit hole, I'd observe that there are very many significant differences between Somalia and the United States and that the existence of government is just one small part.

>I'd observe that there are very many significant differences between Somalia and the United States and that the existence of government is just one small part.

Could it be that "the existence of government" plays a big role in there being "very many significant differences between Somalia and the United States"?

Advanced countries can turn into rubble very fast if central government collapses -- grabs for power, civil wars, etc. Heck: https://searchingforsyria.org/en/how-can-i-help-syrian-refug...

If George Washington declared himself king, you might be looking today at 30% unemployment like some of the euros

Most of the European states that have monarchs (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands for instance) are doing alright, Spain is an outlier.

Let's not forget the UK.

I haven't forgotten the UK. It's where I come from. Unfortunately the saying: "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there." applies.

So I sometimes try to avoid mentioning it, and especially anything to do with Brit royalty.

I'm not sure what you're hinting at, but it sounds like the current state of UK politics has you exasperated.

Still, the UK is objectively doing alright these days, and objectively has a monarchy :)

What is the point you were trying to make?

"that the existence of government is just one small part."

I dont think you can qualify government as "just one small part". America would not be in the same place today without the decisions taken over time by its leaders. The same decisions would not be made under a different system of incentives for a leader like a monarchy/anarchy

It wouldn't be the same place, but it would still have enjoyed the highest natural-resource to population ration of any nation in history. Coal, Iron, Oil, Natural Gas, Gold, Wood, Water, Arible land, Uranium, Aluminium, Copper, all in great supply. The only comparable nations I can think of are Australia and Brazil, and their relative wealth is rather well explained by the overall wealth gradient nearing the equator:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_and_wealth

I keep reading that on HN, but after hanging around libertarians for a lifetime, I've never met a single one who said that. Usually Somalia comes up in the context of someone wanting a bigger government and dismissively telling libertarians "Why doncha just move to Somalia? Huh?"

Is that maybe what you're thinking of?

There is a difference between Anarchy and libertarianism. Most libertarians want less government, not no government.

But less government tends to lead to no government, or right back to where we are today depending on how strongly held one's beliefs are. Good luck finding two people to agree on what exactly should be cut on the road to "less".

From my perspective, the libertarian vision "less government" looks a lot like "no government." Just defense and contract enforcement, right? With ridiculous notions like environmental issues being handled by courts.

Less than what exactly?

What many libertarians want is decentralization. As much as possible. They probably want to get rid of all powerful Federal Government but local governments (as small as possible) and confederations are usually fine.

Speaking as someone from Poland/EU, which is heading in the opposite direction...

Many people seem to be complaining about certain absurd EU regulations that were forced upon us.

I, for one, am extremely happy - centralised government has saved us from a lot of absurd ideas the local policymakers had. Also, we have one extra level of courts, where you can go when your government breaks law.

Not to mention all the benefits for commerce and travel - knowing that other EU states have similar laws and standards helps a lot.

And now we will soon have "separate but equal" restrooms in Texas.

I find state rights advocates to be the worst™ people in the world. They advocate for state rights when it suits them. Absolutely hypocritical bunch.

We've decided as a nation that there are some rights and responsibilities that we have regardless of where we live within this nation. How many times do we have to fight for civil rights?

You're making the strange assumption that the federal government will always be be more in line with your own political views than your state government. After all, at the end of the day a hard-right state is less bad for liberals than a hard-right country, because only in the first case can they try to find a job in California.

Yes, he's assuming the government will not be terrible to live under. But saying "at least with local government, terrible governments will be localized" is a copout. Can we have non-terrible governments? If so, it makes sense to try and ensure everyone has one.

To me this is like telling "Government will be right for everyone this time, if we tweak the parameters right". Applying rules of Empiricism to large scale governing will just make things worse as long as people have very different world views.

Besides, locality has inherent advantages such as familiarity, cultural similarity and accountability. So at least some local governments will be probably suitable for your liking.

I've lived in a small, rural town in Texas and a big city in New Jersey. While the dynamics of local power are very different, I never felt like anybody in power was accountable to me (I am a nobody).

The power of two or three wealthy families is readily visible almost like a movie in a small town. The power structure in a bigger city from what I can gather is a little bit more complex since there are more players. However, I don't think "the powers that be" in a local level are any more accountable to the governed in a localized setting than in a national setting.

I mean think about the last HOA you lived in and tell me you felt the power structure there was "fair".

Just to be clear, injustice at the state level is still injustice. Oppression of minorities at the state level is still oppression. Dragnet surveillance at the state level is still a blow to privacy.

The state rights advocates like I said are the worst. States are too big. What we should focus on is the individual.

i.e. warlords

If it comes to that, having a local warlord over a large state warlord is the better option.

Strange thing is the same friends would not live in Somolia if given the chance...

I would question your assumption there; plenty of Somali diaspora move back and live in Somalia or Somaliland.