Often, moral positions aren't based in reality; they're based on ideals.
Just because all current countries do thing one way does not mean that it's the best way; there isn't really a large variety of government/economic systems in use. Yes, there's variability, but essentially all of them are based in capitalism, and most governmental systems are either some form of western "liberal democracy" or monarchy. I personally find it tragic that there's no place left in the world to experiment with different ways of organizing governments; I always fear monoculture.
And even if you do move to other countries, sometimes, there's just no fit. This is a question I've given a lot of though to lately, and there's really no place that I could live where I'd consider the government to be truly moral. I'd simply be trading one kind of unhappiness for another, and while it might get _better_, it won't reach maximum.
> Demanding that they're slashed by 100% is just madness.
Even those who advocate such a thing consider it to be drastic, yes. Life wouldn't continue in the same way, but they have other solutions to those problems.
Actually, anarchists don't generally see Somalia as an example of anarchy. It's generally accepted that for an anarchist... state to form, significant social change is necessary before any sort of governmental chance. You cannot just take the training wheels off, or you'll fall.
I suspect your opinion of anarchy is that of 13 year olds and punk bands, and I can't really blame you. There's a large amount of poor press involved. It's actually very thoroughly thought out, even if you disagree with their premises. If you'd care to learn more, there is a FAQ: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
Note, this is from a collectivist perspective, who say that anarcho-captialists are not anarchists. I'm not sure of a great resource on anarcho-captialism, but it's basically just a more extreme version of libertarianism/minarchism anyway.
Okay, enough off topic stuff. Just please try to consider the way you casually dismiss others' beliefs, it makes them less likely to listen to your arguments (which are good ones).
Your link just upgrades "13 year olds and punk bands" to "20 year olds, phish, and alt-electronic bands". I'll stand by my casual dismissal, but if it makes you feel any better, I have the same level of casual disdain for people who claim communism just hasn't been implemented properly.
Just because all current countries do thing one way does not mean that it's the best way; there isn't really a large variety of government/economic systems in use. Yes, there's variability, but essentially all of them are based in capitalism, and most governmental systems are either some form of western "liberal democracy" or monarchy. I personally find it tragic that there's no place left in the world to experiment with different ways of organizing governments; I always fear monoculture.
And even if you do move to other countries, sometimes, there's just no fit. This is a question I've given a lot of though to lately, and there's really no place that I could live where I'd consider the government to be truly moral. I'd simply be trading one kind of unhappiness for another, and while it might get _better_, it won't reach maximum.
> Demanding that they're slashed by 100% is just madness.
Even those who advocate such a thing consider it to be drastic, yes. Life wouldn't continue in the same way, but they have other solutions to those problems.