Originally Posted by BR
Somalia. You hate it and shrug it off because it's a counterexample to your claims. However, your confirmation bias won't let you admit that Somalia undermines your propositions.
Somalia - Is that really all you got?
The major problems with claims that Somalia is a "libertarian utopia" is that it's actually a failed third-world state. Government or no, it's not going to magically acquire the resources, education, and technology to become a first-world nation; and those of us in first-world nations like the technology that even a semi-free market can produce. Nor will its citizens necessarily be ready for freedom and individual responsibility; much like the fizzled "Arab spring", they may instead cry for a new (religious) dictator. Second, the fallout of a failed state doesn't mean a peaceful voluntaryist nation. In fact, new distributed states—warlords—sprang up quickly, hardly libertarian followers of the NonAggressionPrinciple. There is definitely variance across the nation, and apparently more freedom outside the larger cities (Mogadishu).
Somalia also does not protect property rights, which is what libertarians and right-anarchists demand of a society to be considered liberty-oriented to begin with.
But it's interesting that measurably, even with those problems, Somalia is in some ways better off then when it had a centralized state:
Sauce: CIA, UN, UNICEF - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365
The article attributes this in part to aid agencies (not government).
It would seem even distributed, smaller, government is preferable to the large centralized moloch developing in the western world. If we take that to its' logical conclusion, decentralization>centralization ends up with the smallest increment of society -the individual- taking responsibility for herself and society, and we end up with anarchy (not chaos -that would be irresponsible!).