Argumentum ad Somalium

A common objection to living in a world ungoverned by a violent, territorial monopoly is that, without government, warlords would take over their own pieces of the country by force and violently go to war with one another in order to try and conquer the rest. Probably to illustrate their objections in as snarky a fashion as possible, commenters often claim something to following effect:

“Dude, if you want that sort of country, you can go to Somalia right now and see how far it gets you.”

The commenter effectively implies that by staying within the geographic boundaries claimed by the Unites States we must be consenting to any and every rule set by the U.S. government, otherwise we ought to just move to Somalia, our apparent anarchist Utopia.

To which Tothe offers in response, “You mean the country where government collapsed? That’s your proof that government is necessary? You do know that post-collapse, Somalia improved by nearly every metric both compared to statehood and to surrounding countries, right? And that the warfare in Mogadishu was between competing would-be governments and foreign intervention by other governments, right? How does this prove a need for government again?”

*add links to constituent sub-entries covering the Somalia situation penned by others forming an argument tree. Any novel point or original objection opponents come up with requiring an original response gets itself incorporated into the FAQ.

See also:
Ancapedia: Wouldn’t the Warlords Takeover?