3 ms·

@MadManE: Somalia has tried it for the last few years. No pesky government interference there.

• icebraining 12y ago
  Yeah, that terrible Somalia place, with its dropping infant mortality, increased life expectancy, massive increase in adult literacy, fledging and competitive telecommunications market and thriving economy sectors like livestock. Or maybe this is just biased reporting from that anti-government rag, the BBC[1][2]. And none of this matters, because taking Somalia as the standard for anarchy is no more valid than using Nazi Germany has the example of the result of democracy[3]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_...
  • ceejayoz 12y ago
    "It's a bit less shitty" really doesn't help your argument all that much. I'd still rather not live there.
    • icebraining 12y ago
      And I'd rather not live in North Korea, even though it has a stable government. The fact that a place is both (more or less) stateless and a hard place to leave doesn't mean that the former necessarily causes the latter, any more than having a government necessarily means it'll be a murderous dictatorship.
      • ceejayoz 12y ago
        You have an interesting definition of "stable government" if North Korea is one. They're one death away from complete chaos - if Kim Jong-Un dies, it's probably all-out civil war.