Its definitely not a stupid assertion. Just simply an extreme case that may not have merit as a comparison. However, it seems valid within a hatred of all things government, thus your explanation as to why Somalia is not a test case is insufficient.
For example, it is suggested that it was the lack of government that induced the "aggression". Similarly, how does libertarianism deal with aggression without government intervention?
"...the dollar having lost 95% to 98% of its purchasing power during the feds stable prices mandate.
You replace "devaluation" with "purchasing power" because you have to lie to generate any apparent support for your idiotic viewpoint.
Well, thats what would be expected coming from a loony tune libertarian. Has he ever mention the Somalian example of his favored political modeling?
"I can think of 62,000 reasons why John Stossel is wrong!" suggests posing the question would be futile.
As in a nearby thread, isn't Somalia proof that a libertarian approach is catastrophic?
Yes, it is true.
I didn't know that Marxists were known for stating the truth. Interesting.
1. Can't distinguish between 1 occurrence (as you originally stipulated) from 20,000.
2. Attempt at repeat of same unjustified reasoning, but withheld for unsubstantiated barrier.
3. Repeat of lie.
4. Repeat of evidence withheld due to secrecy.
5. Inability to understand simple referencing.
6. Fallacious ad hominem
8. "No" is the correct answer. "Gold is money" is the wrong answer.
9. Now shows understanding of simple referencing, indication avoidance at 5. See 7.
10. see 7.
11. end of idiotic libertarian nonsense.
More than millions already know libertarians are looney tunes. See Piers Morgan / Alex Jones interview. Just one youtube clip alone has had over one and a quarter million views.
The following does not advance your position. Rather, it highlights your status as a looney tune.
1. Mentioning the rare occurrences.
2. Repeating the already disproven "Article I, Section 10" argument.
3. Lying about counterfeiting by Ignoring defining legislation.
4. Withholding evidence due to secrecy.
5. see 1.
7. Conspiracy theory
8. Falsely representing an ex Chairman of the Fed.
9. see 7.
10. see 7.
Why do you think you are more than 1 person ?
What freedoms were lost after 9/11 ?
Not to be taken to task for law breaking is a rare occurrence, usually ensuring as a whitewash. Since nothing has anywhere near that occurred in relation to the Fed's existence or its activities, your charge is baseless....something only a looney tune would create.