Many people (not all) who espouse libertarian ideals do so to the extreme... government is always a hindrance, people can govern themselves if left alone, it's MY money/life/whatever, yada yada yada. Hence, the Somalia comparison/option. Somalia proves, in it's own way, that a complete and total lack of structure doesn't work, either, which is really what the absolute extreme of libertarianism is. There will always be some person wanting to be a warlord or some dictator-type that will screw it up for everybody else. It's the human factor, which libertarianism can't seem to reconcile.
The point being when these stark contrasts are brought up, I think, is... like it or not, there needs to be some foundation and structure of some kind, and it will probably infringe to some degree on people's 'rights', but the extreme alternative is not as warm-and-fuzzy as imagined. If you really think so, there is a "country" where you can try it out. In fact, to hear some people espouse how limiting government interference is to our well being, one would think that a place like Somalia would be a shining beacon of human spirit and individual accomplishment lifting everybody out of poverty and into unprecedented prosperity.
This poll shows a complete lack of understanding of life in Somalia. It's not the wild west people in North America think it is. Sure - it's a dangerous place but I'd take Somalia vs. the DRC any day of the week.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK