No State to kill and rob you.

Nope. Human beings are naturally selfish pricks.

Um, you can enforce laws without the state.

It is not viable in the US because there are not enough responsible individuals.

As a transition state to another form of governance or to "clear out the cobwebs" of the current form.

>>2859345
No they're not.

http://phys.org/news/2011-02-young-children-prizes.html
http://phys.org/news/2011-09-humans-naturally-cooperative-altruistic-social.html

>>2859344
Yup, you just got everyone to kill and rob you, instead.

>>2859351
I'm batman your new king bow down to my god status or join me in my band of merry highwaymen. Yeah we can be batman now. Derp

>>2859393
You don't need the majority of people to be dicks for everyone to get fucked.

You just need one big dick with power, and he will gladly fuck everyone.

>>2859394
If people were truly the devils you think they are, the murder rate would be much higher.

>>2859409
One man with a really big dick is pretty easy to stop. Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany was a monster. Adolf Hitler at a general assembly would just be an asshole.

>>2859393
also science: adult humans are dicks if they dont fear consequences

>>2859330
Because there isn't anything a bunch of thugs making you do something can do better than a group of people working together voluntarily.

>>2859419
Way to remove the "with power" part of the equation. Adolf Hitler with the charisma and plan to gather followers in your anarchist society is also a monster.

Some big dick starts off small, dicking over one guy with the help of a buddy, cutting him in on the share. He now has more power and resources, and dicks over more people and gets more followers in on his scheme, giving them all a cut, with him at the top as the unifying leader. He continues this until, surprise surprise, he establishes himself as the de facto dictatorship, and we're back at medieval feudalism, and states form.

>>2859478
You're forgetting that anarchists are against power relations in general. There would be no way for anyone to try and force his will on a mass of other people.

You're also forgetting that guns would still exist. Anyone who tries to use force to get his way will first have to fight against everyone else.

>>2859496
Or at least his group would have to fight against everyone else. Historically, the only mode by which a despot has gained power over a mass of other people has been through private property or representative democracy.

>>2859496
Your forgetting anarchist don't even subsribe to their own tents. Next Occupy protest or g20 summit walk up to a member of the black brigade and slug him in the face. You think the rest will hang-out and watch. No they'll interfere, because they have unwittingly formed a social group around hypocricy, ie a gang.

>>2859407
Hey Batman, thanks for using your highwaymen keeping me safe during my travels in exchange for everything I own, including my wife and daughter!

>>2859496
Did you ignore the second half of the post? He gets FOLLOWERS. People willing to do dirty work for him in exchange for a cut. You seriously underestimate how easy it is to get people to blindly follow you. See: religion, cults, revolutions, organized crime...

Your little collective village of a hundred people is outgunned by his unified group of followers, who have all the arms at their disposal from dicking over the last 5 collectives.

>In an anarchist society everyone is a giant dickbag becuase they don't have a government to force them not to be.

Logical fallacy.

>>2859533
>Your little collective village of a hundred people is outgunned by his unified group of followers

So now we're just making assumptions? A federated network of communes would quickly work together to smash the inroads made against it by biker gangs, or dicks with guns.

I hate to say it, but as much as I would prefer a voluntary society, with a real social contract, formed with contracts and property rights, must people are simply not ready to be that free. Look around the US, hardly anybody takes responsibility now days.

>>2859551
And how do you regulate these unifying movements of communes? They clearly hold different ideals and standards, given that they're separate from each other, so you need some sort of unifying infrastructure to govern how they operate, and how to resolve differences in the laws they enact.....perhaps some sort of state....

>>2859522
Anarchists are against the initiation of aggression, not defending their own. Fucking moron.

>>2859551

> a network of communes.

Headed by what code of conduct or security arrangement?

>>2859330
1800s western America = Peak Civilization

the wild west was sooooooo wild that the biggest gun fight only ended in a few dead

>>2859551
>A federated network of communes
That sounds like a government

>>2859588

"Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, capitalism and private property (while retaining respect for personal property), and in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"."

>>2859581
A network of communes would mostly work as a trade system. Quarrels and disputes between communes would probably be dealt with between the communes themselves. The network would be unable to enforce any declaration or enact any laws. The communes might meet together occasionally to form a trade plan, but the plan wouldn't be binding.

>They clearly hold different ideals and standards

Doubt it. There isn't much to anarchism in general except "Don't use force against another individual."

>>2859351
Not only is an anarchy not favorable, but it is impossible. People with some sort of power will subjugate people with less power.

>>2859604
>retaining respect for personal property), and in favor of common ownership of the means of production

Is a hammer personal property or means of production?

>>2859619
You mean the situation as it currently stands?

>If you are part of a group of people who work together for mutual benefit with no governing body but rather a system of reason and respect. A group of people who live with one another and look after one another - you have formed a government and are no longer an anarchist.

Another logical fallacy.

>>2859393
>implying its one or the other

Humans are both dicks and altruistic. You can trust on people to be shitty and then be pleasantly surprised when they're not, but on the flip side it's probably not very wise to expect people to never be shitty and then act shocked when you're stabbed in the back.

>>2859622
Personal property, however a factory that's labored in by multiple workers is a means of production. Don't be obtuse.

>>2859613
If all you're unifying is trade agreements, how in the fuck is that going to stop Adolf Big-Dick from marching into your individual communes one by one and taking what he wants by force? Your argument was that the communes would unify to stop him, but that would require more than just trade agreements. You need to organize your armies, redistribute your weaponry, plan your defenses...

>>2859613
>A network of communes would mostly work as a trade system. Quarrels and disputes between communes would probably be dealt with between the communes themselves. The network would be unable to enforce any declaration or enact any laws. The communes might meet together occasionally to form a trade plan, but the plan wouldn't be binding.

So in other words, they'll be completely ineffectual in fending off a large invasion.

>>2859619
>People with some sort of power will subjugate people with less power.

How will they get power in the first place? Don't just say they'll dick over other people. Examination of the origin of power relations leads us to believe that the only way to gain power in the first place is through private ownership of collectively used means of production and through the manipulation of already existing power relations (Hitler came to power through representative democracy. The Feudal lords monopolized land and used force to prevent the peasants from taking it for themselves.)

>>2859330

The OP's pic is the current situation. There is no "rule of law" in America

An oligarch can steal 1.2 billion from people and not a shit is given. A poor bum can steal $80, return it and get 20 years.

>>2859642
What about an automated factory?

>>2859665
People labor to maintain it.

>>2859660
You are once again seriously underestimating how stupidly easy it is to get people to follow you.
>Religion
>Cults
>Organized crime
>Revolutions
All you need is a cause to champion and a promise of benefits to your followers.

>>2859686
What if the owner is able to maintain it himself?

>>2859687
So why aren't today's states wracked with constant revolution, if it's so easy to get people to follow you?

>>2859648
Name
E-mail
Subject
>>2859646
One commune may ask the network for help. Some communes may help, others may not. Think of it like the UN, except with no binding treaties.

Adolf the Big Dick would have to face something similar to the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine.

>In other words, the organ for the defence of the revolution, which is charged with combating the counter-revolution both on the open military fronts as well as on the covert fronts of the civil war (plots by the bourgeoisie, the preparation of rebellions, etc.), will be under the complete control of the highest workers' and peasants' productive organizations - it will be answerable to them and under their political direction.

>>2859665
If it's completely automated, I don't see the problem in declaring it as a personal possession.

>>2859697
Then it is his I guess. So long as no one is laboring to aid in his production.

>anarchy
>stable

pick one.

How large can commune grow, before a person capable of creating an organised group emerges capable of forcing his or her interest at expense of everyone else? How large can it grow before people no longer know each other to sufficient extent to feel involved in their affairs?

I would honestly like to hear answer to these from an anarchist with degree in sociology.

Can you hire people to build you a house or do you have to build it yourself?

>>2859699
Because we have well-armed, organized, and centralized states to shut down any movement that isn't nation-wide. Most people, especially the would-be leaders of the revolution, are smart enough to realize that they don't stand a god damn chance and don't try. If you could get a revolutionary movement that actually grabbed a sizable chunk of our massive population, then maybe you can try.

>>2859700
>>2859708
so to keep your property the smart thing to to is fire all of your workers and replace them with robots

Who will be in charge of seizing the means of production?

>>2859752
I guess, but they'll just work for themselves then. You're be the industrial baron of an empire of ashes.

>>2859738
In exchange for this stability, every member of society is a slave with no actual agency who exists as a disposible public asset.

>>2859710
The whole point of anarchy is it's lack of stability, or rather it's freedom (in the eyes of anarchists). Yet you have hordes of people here thinking anarchist society will be anything like our current ones. Anarchists are stupid.

>>2859660

Well ask yourself how the different emperors began dynasties after the previous fell. Not by their private property, but by sheer force. What organization has the guns, and the drugs? The gangs! If our current system of government fails, the gangsters will be in control.

>>2859775
Most people already live in an anarchistic state. How much meaningful contact does anyone actually have with the state? Some public works that could be managed by the community, being forced to pay taxes, and the odd police report when the cops fail to prevent a crime.

>>2859773
In exchange for freedom of anarchy individuals actually have a much lower quality of life. People who are physically weaker will be taken advantage of by the stronger, people who are mentally weaker will be taken advantage of by the intelligent. Might means right, hooray anarchy!

>>2859763
But they don't have any heavy equipment

Anarchy is the temporary state before someone seizes power

>>2859793
Might already means right. Do you seriously think that the state wont crush when the social attitude changes to be against you?

Anarchy is babbys first political system, isn't it about time you children move on to a system that actually works

>>2859796
Aside from what they've already claimed by virtue of having labored for you.

>>2859793
What freedom they can no longer sell their labor or hire labor
You still have not said who is going to enforce this

>>2859811
>isn't it about time you children move on to a system that actually works

Which would be...?

>>2859807
This is why we prefer democratic forms of government.

>>2859789
>Most people already live in an anarchistic state.

Anarchists seem to love to use this line but don't realize how silly it is. If they already live in an anarchist state then why do we need to change anything? If it's already anarchy, why do we need to change to anarchy? Do we need more anarchy instead? The reality is that virtually no one in 1st world nations lives in anarchy. You simply are unaware of everything the state does for you.
-public roads
-environmental protection of Air, water, and land
-public security
-international public security (i.e. military)
-safety regulations
-regulations that improve efficiency

You more than likely make use of every single one of these, whether you realize it or not. Even if you lived your whole life entirely off grid in a nature preserve somewhere you would still be benefiting from government protection of wild life and land.

>>2859812
but I automated my factory
you said I could keep it

>>2859807
>democratic state
>might means right

Just because you don't like the current govt doesn't mean it's the same thing as anarchy.

>>2859789
public schools, public healthcare paid in taxes. Well equipped healthcare, thanks to economies of scale that would be difficult to achieve, and certainly very expensive, in absence of order. Infrastructure mostly built by state. Lower transaction costs due to regulations related to labour, food, fire safety etc. Although living in a post communist country, judicial system leaves something to be desired, although there has been signs of improvement

Why do all pro anarchy arguments rely on debunked ideas?

>>2859825
>-public roads

Paved through private industries contracted by the state. There is absolute no reason a community couldn't manage this.

>-environmental protection of Air, water, and land

Not a single reason a community can't manage this.

>-public security

See above.

>-international public security (i.e. military)

You mean that parasitic organism that exists entirely to enact the interests of corporate oligarchs? Nice contribution.

>-safety regulations

That companies hold to higher standards than are issued by the state.

>-regulations that improve efficiency

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you seriously think state regulations improve efficiency. Oh wow.

>>2859838
>>2859838
Because "anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world." (-Ayn Rand)

>>2859838
Because self-declared anarchists don't actually have any good real-life examples to show that their way would work.

>>2859857
Who builds the roads/infrastructure for the state
volunteers
are people randomly drafted
paid employees

Anarchy is for faggots.

>>2859857
>small communities would be more efficient at doing everything a state does
>small communities would be able to muster enough resources and labor to do it on the same scale

No.

How would your small communities maintain all that stuff, either?

Most statist arguments seem to hinge on the idea that because the state provides something that it is the only thing that can provide that.

"The state makes chairs, without the state, how will we get chairs?"

>>2859857
>You mean that parasitic organism that exists entirely to enact the interests of corporate oligarchs? Nice contribution.

Have fun getting steamrolled by any neighboring nation that wants your stuff.

At the bottom of it all we actually are living in an anarchy.
You CAN do whatever you want, but because of consequences most people won't do it. If we were to have true anarchy where people would be able to do what the fuck ever they want, then you have to realize that taking power over other people will be a part of the anarchy. "Oh but he won't be able to do that, it's anarchy". Do you not see the flaw in this? If he can be forced not to do something in the name of anarchy, it isn't anarchy. The world is anarchy by default.

>>2859908
>>2859908
If I rape my neighbor I go to a state prison, that's not anarchy

>>2859896

>>2859901
Have fun with a long, incredibly costly campaign against a decentralized guerilla force.

If you like anarchy so much, then why don't you anarchofags go to somalia?

>>2859896

state is the only entity with some accountability to everyone, and is therefore the only entity in whose interests it lies to provide this service with some semblance of efficiency.

Biggest problem with that is lack of control of how the state goes about providing this.

But consider this - private business would have no reason to provide fresh water to EVERY settlement. It would only have incentive to provide fresh water to settlement with sufficient amount of currency, even if the lack of currency in certain settlements was due to water shortage.

>>2859857
>There is absolute no reason a community couldn't manage this.

Actually there is a reason. It's called an economy of scale and there is very little reward to investing in roads for small communities and private businesses. We might have roads, but it would be less like our current highway system and more like 1887

>-environmental protection of Air, water, and land
This statement is beyond retarded and shows you have no understanding where pollution comes from. Obama's policies improved air quality in many US cities. The specific policies? Mostly regulations on efficiency of ocean tankers. The air pollution gets carried from the ocean airways over to the land. A small community would have a difficult time imposing regulations on far away polluters.

>-public security
Private security systems do not work. Law requires a single entity to administer it. Saying otherwise just shows you don't understand very basic tenets of law.

>You mean that parasitic organism that exists entirely to enact the interests of corporate oligarchs? Nice contribution.

You mean there are people in other countries who would put a shotgun barrel down your throat and pull the trigger just because of where you're from and you don't think this is a big deal?

>That companies hold to higher standards than are issued by the state.

This just plain isn't true.

>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you seriously think state regulations improve efficiency. Oh wow.

They do.

>>2859916
yeah, it is.
but a bunch of people who agree with each other has gotten power and taken control.
you're still able to do whatever you want, but other people will also be able to do whatever the fuck they want to you.
the flaw with most people's view on anarchy is that they're thinking "I'll be able to do whatever I want to people and stuff" but they don't realize that this will also apply to everyone else, and if they want, they can lock you in a room and never let you out.

>>2859936

Because Somalia is full of niggers, if there is one thing which /pol/ hates more than the government - it's niggers.

>>2859936

If you like state so much, why dont you go to Zimbabwe or N. Korea?

80% of all "anarchists" are people who just sit around doing nothing all day and complaining about the world.

>>2859969

>100% of all statists are people who just sit around doing whatever they are told and accepting that this is the best they can achieve.

>>2859964

because I like state how it is, with some objections. I don't want to live in a state that would likely pop up from an anarchy within few years.

I'm not educated enough to argue this, so I'm backing out of this thread. Victory for the statists. I'll close by saying this: the state is composed of people. Nothing more. You don't become more justified in murdering, robbing, or enslaving someone just because you put a fancy hat on.

>>2859980
100% of you is a bitch

>>2859936
Because Somalia is a shithole. It's a shithole that improved following the collapse of its state, but it's still a shithole.

>>2859992

>ad hominem.

>>2859980

that's still better than thinking that I can fix a clay pot with a hammer

>>2860001

>only a statist could think so narrowly

>>2859330
>Why would an anarchy be favorable?
Every "subject" would have an opportunity to start anew.

>>2859996
nihil nequius est te

>>2860011
Especially the "subject" of whether or not I should shoot you in the face for no reason.

Arguments in favour of anarchy often suggest that"the comunity" would be able to do this and that (things currently done by big bad guv'ment). Of course, since people have their individual labours to attend to, a community would very likely need some members that are somewhat dedicated to doing this and that for the greater good.

Do you know what that sounds like?

>>2860005

eh, yeah, I suppose. Wouldn't you better serve the society in creating some sort of Holistic Citizen Initiative that would find what is wrong or inefficient with government and address it to the politicians along with public, rather than trying to destroy it and pray that nothing worse is replacing it in your lifetime

>>2860011
In other words, a starting point to eventually form an entirely new state.

>>2860016
>Hurr durr Anarchy won't work because people might be dicks
>To prove this theory I'll be a dick

Yeah nice argument champ.

>>2859988
>I have no understand of where government gets it's legitimacy from

Well at least you can admit it.

>>2860035

You mean how I spend my sundays volunteering at a soup kitchen and my saturday mornings staging boycotts of corrupt and mismanaged companies while trying to make consumers more informed as to what the corporations are getting away with because they are too busy being irresponsible?

>>2859784

Top 10 reasons why the mafia is better than the government.

10) Sense of honor: If the mafia says they will do something, they will do it.

9) Mafia code of conduct is clear and has no legal doublespeak.

8) When competing mafias go to war, they don't kill millions of civilians as collateral damage. War is the health of the govt but its bad for mafia business.

7) The mafia will not put you in prison for smoking a joint.

6) When you buy protection from the mafia, you get protection.

5) The mafia's protection is much less expensive than the govt. Mafias only take 10% unlike 50% in taxes.

4) Mafia wants your business to succeed. More business for you = more money for the mafia. No regulations, no redtape, no waste of time filling self incriminating tax forms.

3) The mafia doesnt take away your guns.

2) The mafia doesn't care about what you do in your bedroom or what you teach your kids.

1) The mafia are much more easy on the eyes.

>>2859896
It's not the only way, and probably not the best way, but certainly a better way than fucking anarchy.

>>2859925
Have fun getting the shit bombed out of you with drones or keeping any territory worth fighting over. Run and hide.

>>2859944
>anarchy
>1. a state of society without government or law

Your definition of anarchy is different from everybody else's.

>>2859980
I think the modern state is a good entity, but I don't think it's a perfect entity. I think power needs to be concentrated, but I don't think that everybody in a state's territory should be beholden to it if they don't wish to be a part of it, even if they do receive some of the benefits (secure borders, clean air/water, other "passive" things that the state does). But there needs to be some way of disconnecting them from the state main, as it would be as unfair to give them the benefits of, say, a mass transit system when they don't pay taxes as it would to tie them to the state just because they were born there.

As for the argument of "leave it, then," a man should not be forced to leave the place of his birth merely because he doesn't wish to be a citizen of the state which occupies it.

There has to be a middle ground somewhere.

Does that all make me a statist?

>>2860039

Its called a Revolution for a reason, shits gotten out of hand - time to start a new. In the future shit will get out of hand again and the future generations will hopefully start over new - like the revolving wheels of a giant bicycle.

Captcha: Rev.

>>2860046
That's actually not what I was saying at all.

Rather in an anarchist system the subject of ethical and moral conduct is reset as well. I can decide it's moral for me to kill you. Who are you to say I'm wrong? Also anarchy wouldn't work not because I personally would prove it not to, but because somebody else would.

>>2859936
For the 500th time, Somalia has improved vastly since its government went away.

>>2860060
None of that is true of the mafia.

>>2859393
Attention anarchist faggots! This is the Lord Humongous speaking. You will lay down your arms and supply us with gasoline and your women or we shall take them. If you refuse to comply with out demands we shall raze your village to the ground, the men shall be killed, and the women shall be given over to my dogs of war!

You have ten minutes to convene and make your decision.

>>2860054

No, I mean you reading the legislation, finding what is wrong in it and suggesting improvement that will be universally beneficial.

Or reading through ledgers and account books and finding where something has been done inefficiently.

God knows every government needs people who do this, and often mistreats them.

>>2860071
Actually almost all the improvement that has happened of recent is only because of financial aid given to the only govt entity. You could not bring up a worse example for anarchy.

>>2860086
>watchdog NGOs

>>2860061

Benefits should be general then. Not specific. Interstates, fresh water and clean food benefit everyone. Specialized birth control because people are irresponsible does not.

The Constitution was set up so individual states would have more power than the government. This would allow residents to vote more democratically and less republically granting them more customization of where they wanted to live. States are also close enough that if you really disagreed you could go to another state you liked and still not have to leave this amazing country of ours.

>>2860064
Killing me would be a dick move bro, don't be a dick.

Power vacuums are always filled, so anarchism is impossible anyway. The argument is moot.

>>2860094

thank you for summing my post up in two words.

>>2860113
If I don't kill you then somebody else will anyways. This way I can take your resources for my own.

>>2860104
>The Constitution was set up so individual states would have more power than the government.

No that was the articles of confederation. The Federal Government has more total power, but it's power is also more restricted and concentrated in defense, foreign trade, interstate commerce(until they made that mean everything), and incorporation of new territory.

>>2860131
>If I don't kill you then somebody else will anyways.

Well there you go, I can't argue with that factually sound point.

>>2860117
>anarchy never occurs
>"power vacuums" happen


Now wait just a doggoned minute...

>>2860146

Fed is only granted the ability to treat with Foreign powers, States as a whole and the Indian tribes. I guess in that regard it has more power. States were more run by the people so that is where I was going with that.

>>2860163

I'm guessing he meant that anarchy is not sustainable for any length of time, since power vacuum is bound to be filled shortly after its origination.

>>2860192
Yeah that seems to be his point and it's very correct. Anarchy cannot exists, it's an ideology which presumes that power can simply disappear. It cannot, it can only be transferred. From govt to private. Anarchy is private power. Statism is public power.

>>2860192
well duh ya dummy

>>2860016
>Especially the "subject" of whether or not I should shoot you in the face for no reason.
You could do that anyway.
Will you?
>In other words, a starting point to eventually form an entirely new state.
...or a group of states,
or a group of lawless dictatorships,
or one lawless dictatorship,
or a mutual,
or a group of mutuals,
or a subworld.

>>2860203

Did not the native cultures, or "savages" as you probably like to refer to them, live in a state of anarchy?

>>2860203

It is an ideology that assumes power resides with the individual and they are responsible enough to handle it

>>2860072
0/10

>>2860234
Of course they didn't. Cultures only existed around civilizations. Individuals lived in a state of anarchy before the world was populated. But there were never anarchist societies that lasted long. They always give way to a civilization. By fighting for anarchy you are fighting to roll the dice and let whoever may end up the strongest take control and decide what is correct.

>>2860104
Interstates are expensive. Citizens who don't pay taxes shouldn't use them.

But then, it would be quite difficult to enforce these laws keeping who I guess I should call libertarians off interstates, buses, etc. without constricting them to certain communities or tracked them somehow. Kinda defeats the purpose of making them more free.

But I don't really see your point. Anywhere you go, you still have to sign a draft form, pay taxes, register for the census, etc. It would really just be a matter of paying a different state tax and having to follow different but expectantly similar state laws.

>>2860234
The only totally leaderless, totally egalitarian society was that of the mobile hunter-gatherers. And that was like a zillion years ago.

Oh, right:
>ctrl+f "Thomas Hobbes"
>0 results

:|

>>2860291
You have no idea how the mafia works do you? You really think they're just friendly businessmen oppressed by big govt making their industry illegal?

>>2860229

we have, right now, a passable government that doesn't oppress us in any way except taking away part of our income to finance services we all use plus some corruption. Why should anyone take it apart in favour of short-lived sense of independence that would, more likely than not, be soon replaced by another form of government, which would be, given historical experience, almost certainly worse than the one we are currently now?

Really, it seems to be much better to sign up with >>2860094
if you desperately want to make world better place. And with some chance of actually succeeding, albeit small.

>>2860292

How then would you describe the Native Americans or Native Australians?

>>2859330
BTW, I like your comic strip. Just because the state has "shutdown" doesn't give that hipster leave to assault the otherwise friendly merchant.

>>2860309

don't be silly, mafia does not really exist. IT's just a fairy tale by the government and the police to justify their spending. You can take my word for it. Honest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NSWW0nLeZI
anarchy works if the vast majority of the people in the communities resent any type of power.

>>2860127
I forgot to say "you're welcome", but you're welcome all the same.

>>2860334
Tribes

Seriously, true anarchy hasn't existed since well before anybody started counting how many times the sun went up and down.

>>2860334
>How then would you describe the Native Americans or Native Australians?

Extinct, or about to be.

>>2860395

>Quaker Pennsylvania
>Nordic Vikings
>"Wild" West

>>2860412

Crushed by "freedom" and "democracy" ey? ey?

>>2860395

But innt tribes and anarchy more or less the same thing? If you have anarchy people are going to join together into tribes.

>>2860472

so anarchy is just governments in small communities? Play by our rules or go to a different community... or country?

How does that work when you get one million people together into one city? Or should we give up the excessive specialisation that comes from our numbers and settle for life of a tribesman?

>>2860533

They group together but no one rules them. They police and monitor themselves.

>>2860416
Wow, what terrible examples.

Quaker Pennsylvania was beholden to the Crown, had a government which established treaties, enforced religious freedom, invented the county commission, and issued paper currency as early as 1730.

Oh, come on, now. Vikings were ruled by kings. That's Viking 101.

The Wild West was just an extension of the US that had more crime. The government was constantly meddling with it by fighting shitloads of wars: Mexican-American, Civil, Indian. And you had marshals running around, too. And each town had police.

>>2860472
Tribes have leaders. More advanced ones have hierarchies.
There were tribes which were basically egalitarian, but which turned to "Big Men" when a situation arose where a leader was needed. But he was a first among equals and would lose his status if the tribe's members found fault. He didn't really have much power even as a leader, anyway.

>>2860585
>There were tribes which were basically egalitarian
Not really it's just that they are so materially power that there is little distinction to an outsider. When they look at hunter gatherers and ask them about themselves a well defined hierarchy always emerges.

>>2860309
>You really think they're just friendly businessmen oppressed by big govt making their industry illegal?
No. In fact, they have, just like everybody else, what is called a pain threshold.

>>2860309
>we have, right now, a passable government that doesn't oppress us in any way except taking away part of our income to finance services we all use plus some corruption.
You're whitewashing, but I'm not sure if it's on purpose, or if you're just ignorant.
>Why should anyone take it apart in favour of short-lived sense of independence that would, more likely than not, be soon replaced by another form of government, which would be, given historical experience, almost certainly worse than the one we are currently now?
>implying I'm an "anarchist"
Why? For whatever reason. I'm not going to be offended by anybody wants me and the others to use less of their rightful earnings. Such is the Golden Rule.
>Really, it seems to be much better to sign up with >>2860094
What? NGO? Whatever floats your boat, baby.

>>2860636
Your post doesn't make much English sense, but I'm sure I disagree with it.

>>2860671
How do you think the government actively oppresses us? Not that I don't think there are examples, but I'd like to hear yours.

>>2860706
>How do you think the government actively oppresses us? Not that I don't think there are examples, but I'd like to hear yours.
The government is only limited by social contract, and for all ways that it isn't limited, it extends it's "governance" far far beyond natural law and common law, and does so at pure whim.