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.
"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 pointed out that your comment was indistinguishable from the philosophy prominent in many articles from VMI. As for 'villifying VMI', please read my post #413 which expands upon VMI's relationships.
"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."
I do not know what the writer believes caused the deaths, only that he brushed them aside as relatively unimportant since Somolia had been able to establish a libertarian form of government. Whether the government could have prevented or even caused these deaths is irrelevent to the writer's perception that Somolia was better off without a central government.
"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."
Consistently fails to protect it's citizens? Really? Sure, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot used the power of government to kill hundreds of millions, but that does not invalidate government as a whole. What do you think about the power of government to protect lives? Has not the power of Isreal protected lives? Has not the support provided by the US government aided in this? What about the power of government used to defeat Hitler, contain Mao and Stalin, and ultimately to overthrow Pol Pot? Aren't you 'throwing out the baby with the bath water'?
Government power is a tool and like any other tool it could be used for good or for evil. That does not justify it's abolition. BTW, how would you defend yourself if this philosophy were to be extended to all forms of power? Surely, firearms can be used for good or for evil. Would you abolish them as well?