Government as coercision and violence.

[Drakken]

This would mean that Iraq is not a failed state and possible even Somalia is not a failed state since they still have some form of national government.

Iraq is not a failed state, but it's currently on the verge of becoming a failing one when a 500,000-men army and the police of two of it's biggest city's are disappearing in front of a rabble of few thousands Jihadists.

Somalia does have a 'legal' government, yes, as a sovereign state, but it is so corrupt and inefficient, and its society and institutions are so irremediably broken, it is widely considered, year after year, the worst failed state in the world.

The key word for the definition of a failed state is 'irremediably'. It must be occuring in the long term with next to no meaningful solutions to solve the problem either from inside or outside.

[Razgovory]

Why must a failed state be "irremediably"? I see no reason for this description to be there.  And how does one judge this?  Corruption and inefficiency should not be a factor.  That reflects a persona bias on what a state should be doing.  Some people might want the state to be corrupt and inefficient.  For instance a business owner may find it easier to operate if the government is corrupt.  In essence he is better served by a corrupt state then he is by a incorruptible state or even a non-interventionist state.

Using your definition Somalia is not only the worst failed state but pretty much the only failed state.  It would seem such a definition is so narrow as to be useless.  It's also very squishy and nearly every case would be up for a debate.

[jimmy olsen]

I suspect you are right Malthus, however, a protection racket is not to be despised in age of constant banditry and invading peoples.  Most people would jump at the chance of exchanging labor or good for the privilege of not having their home burned down by vikings.  The few that aren't are either intending to do some raiding themselves or are simply idiots.

True; I'm merely pointing out that the notion that the government exists to serve society, rather than the other way around, is not the "default" setting for governments. Certainly, it is a much more successful position, and societies that embrace some version of it are typically more potent than those that don't.

The ISIS has set up a consumer protection agency in its Syrian holdings and Hezbollah is famed for its charitable works.

[jimmy olsen]

The ACW is also a special case too because it was so geographically discrete, almost indistiguishable from a war between independent states.  It doesn't compare to the Russian Civil War, Spanish Civil War, or French Revolution in terms of outright chaos. The devolution of authority to the state governments was extraordinarily orderly, considering.  You didn't have blueshirts and greyshirts street fighting in Atlanta and claiming sectors of the city as liberated from U.S. or Georgian rule depending upon their political bent.

Indeed, one might even call it a war over state rights.

[The Brain]

I'm sorry but I just can't take the ACW seriously. "Manassas"? Really? lol

[Ideologue]

The ACW is also a special case too because it was so geographically discrete, almost indistiguishable from a war between independent states.  It doesn't compare to the Russian Civil War, Spanish Civil War, or French Revolution in terms of outright chaos. The devolution of authority to the state governments was extraordinarily orderly, considering.  You didn't have blueshirts and greyshirts street fighting in Atlanta and claiming sectors of the city as liberated from U.S. or Georgian rule depending upon their political bent.

Indeed, one might even call it a war over state rights.

One might also call it a clear-cut case for a war of extermination.

[CountDeMoney]

One might also call it a clear-cut case for a war of extermination.

Unfortunately, it fell short in that regard.