"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?
You keep trying to place me in the position of opposing Israel, which you know full well is against my principles. I don't consider that to be an honest debate tactic, and have almost made up my mind not to discuss anything further with you.
Israel is interesting, as pertains the national defense issue, because its efforts to be humane on the one hand, and not to initiate aggression, on the other, is rather unique. The invasion of Lebanon is the only case I know of that might not be purely defensive in nature. Indeed, Israel is humane to a fault, and non-aggressive to a fault.
The creation of the state of Israel was also non-aggressive: the territory inside the 1948 borders was already a majority-Jewish region, and the creation of the state merely gave it self-rule in the wake of a vaccum created by the British pullout. The expansion in 1967 was the result of a war instigated by Nasser, and fought defensively by Israel, so she is entitled to those lands as legitimate spoils of defensive war, even on (minarchist) libertarian principles.
Israel's government has all the same pros and cons as most western governments, and mostly comes out looking better. There is a strong socialist party in Israel, and the government's many socialist measures have hampered the Israeli economy, just as its decisions concerning Judea, Samaria and Gaza have resulted in the uprooting of Jewish lives and the violation of Jewish property rights.
In short, all governments are tyrannical; some more than others. Israel is one of the best of a bad lot.