Barak I always enjoy reading your post and I find myself agreeing with you a lot.
But I believe a Barakistan system would fall victim to the very same thing that our current system has all but died from.
Mans uncanny ability to mess things up. Man is never satisfied and this has and will always be his undoing.
Any societal system has to be maintained, and as we all know to many people are lazy and apathetic. This leaves the work to fewer people and these people do not always agree. Some are dedicated to the system and work diligently to preserve it. But others are using the freedom that the system gives them to try to make changes. Individuals that do this are not much of a concern it is when they form groups that they become a problem. Some want change so they can satisfy their greed and power lust. Some want to make changes to protect others whether they want it or not. So slowly the system starts to erode and history repeats it's self once again.
It is not the system that fails man it is man that fails the system.
Pat
What you say is exactly why States don't work.
Under a State, all those depraved people you talk about can get coercive political power to subjugate others, so that their evil can destroy hundreds or thousands or millions of lives, rather than just their own.
In a free society, subjugation is replaced by submission: you submit to whatever authority you choose, whenever you choose, and you withdraw your submission whenever you like. No one can long maintain power unless he materially improves the lives of those who choose to submit to him--else they'll offer their submission elsewhere, or perhaps nowhere at all. Evil men can still ruin their own lives, and perhaps those of a few others; but no one can wreak the destruction of a Josef Stalin, or even a George W Bush or a Barack Obama.
Your objection is a restatement of the classic, "Man must be governed, for he is incapable of governing himself." The classic response, of course, is, "How then can he govern others?"
