"The obvious ad hominem aside,"
My comment was not 'ad hominen'. It was clearly directed at VMI and if you take the time to read a few of the articles found at VMI you'll see that my comment is entirely factual.
"...can you in fact prove that the "collapse of government" caused "the death of millions"?"
I've not argued that the collapse of the government caused the deaths. Only that the writer at VMI seemed to think that Somalia was better off without the central government even if one of the results was the deaths.
Another Freeper and I were having a discussion of my perception of a very anti-government bias at VMI when I received this article by email from VMI. I linked to it as an example, a rather mild example BTW.
The point is, based upon my reading of many VMI articles, that this institute is very anti-government. I've been receiving their daily email for three or four years now. While I find their economic analysis rather sound, I do have issues with articles of this type. Just a caveat, I do like their economic analysis except when they get into the abolition of the central banking system and the return to the gold standard stuff.
FYI, VMI is associated with Lew Rockwell. I think he is President of the institute. Lew Rockwell is associated with Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com.
As further evidence of the overall bias against any form of central government, the author of the article you posted is the founder of a website 'anarchism.net' and is dedicated to the dissolution of all forms of government? BTW, Have you visited that website? Rockwells? Raimondo's?
No, my comment was not a personal attack, it was based upon facts.
Glad to hear we agreed that the prevention of these deaths would be a valid function of government. Now, in the context of the article posted at the beginning of this thread, would the central government have the right or obligation or moral responsibility to force it's citizens or residents to bear a portion of the cost of preventing these deaths? Also, would that government's citizens or residents have a moral responsibility to willingly pay their share of that cost? What should the government do if a citizen or resident refuse to pay (ie a free rider)? What if there were no direct benefit to a particular citizen, would the state still be morally correct in taking his assets to assist in this effort?
Please don't be childish: you were addressing me, not the "VMI", none of whose representatives are actually on this thread. Instead of answering my question, you dismissed it as unworthy of consideration by associating it with the (implicitly villified) von Mises Institute.
I've not argued that the collapse of the government caused the deaths. Only that the writer at VMI seemed to think that Somalia was better off without the central government even if one of the results was the deaths.
The writer did not believe that these deaths were caused by lack of central government. Your accusation to the contrary carries no weight unless you can prove the deaths were attributable to lack of government.
Glad to hear we agreed that the prevention of these deaths would be a valid function of government.
Now don't misunderstand. Protecting the lives of Jews is a valid function for the government of the Third Reich, too. And protection of the kulaks is a valid function of Stalin's government. So what? Government doesn't fulfill those functions in the first place: government has killed some hundred million people in the 20th century alone. I suggest the abolishment of government precisely because it consistently fails to fulfil this "valid function," and in fact can be proven incapable of ever doing so.