"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains."

[Chris]

Unless and/or until our population contracts, which is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future, large populations will be the rule, not the exception, and society will continue to adapt to that reality. No amount of philosophy will change the need to impose the rule of law upon the random dynamics of large populations. If we ever see the day where our every material want and need can be produced literally out of thin air, then we will enter an entirely new human dynamic where material needs and wants will no longer be a factor in human behavior.

The aim of much of the previous posts was not to change what is but to account for how it came to be, and how earlier egalitarianism turns totalitarian as populations and power concentrates, and, to add, corrupts, for power corrupts. As a social justice warrior for equality that should annoy and upset you.

And, btw, no one is arguing against the rule of law which exists under anarchy as much as it does under liberal capitalistic democracy.

With that in mind one must ask is concentrated, centralized, top-down government, distant from the people it's supposed to serve, really the best we can do?

[Dr. Who]

The aim of much of the previous posts was not to change what is but to account for how it came to be, and how earlier egalitarianism turns totalitarian as populations and power concentrates, and, to add, corrupts, for power corrupts. As a social justice warrior for equality that should annoy and upset you.

And, btw, no one is arguing against the rule of law which exists under anarchy as much as it does under liberal capitalistic democracy.

With that in mind one must ask is concentrated, centralized, top-down government, distant from the people it's supposed to serve, really the best we can do?

I think that it's unavoidable. That pyramid of social order is intrinsic to our nature. The larger the population, the larger the pyramids. That's why the state evolved out of what we deem as anarchy today. The state is simply a massively inflated reflection of the human family, the human tribe, the human monarchy. While not suggesting that it's the best way or the only way, it's what we are accustomed to. It's how we grow up. Even among social animals, there is the same pyramidal structure. Mom and Dad don't consult the kids about every decision. Within a very small population there will be far more give and take, far more consideration of individual sensibilities and issues. On a vastly grander scale, that's simply not possible and the option to live in tiny cohesive communities is quickly becoming impossible for most people.

As a species, we have generally elevated material gain to the Holy Grail and businesses employ the best psychologists that money can buy to ensure that societies are brainwashed accordingly. It's not really much different than using religion to manipulate people and in the past we had top down control by the largest faiths and they too controlled people through psychology i.e. unless you comply with the Word, you will go to Hell and you will be rejected by all of society. In fact, you might be killed as a heretic. The failure today isn't so much the state per se, but the message that your worth is measured in conspicuous consumption and the moronic laws that give more rights of every kind to fictional humans, i.e. corporations. It has allowed corporations to become so wealthy and powerful that they buy candidates for government such that they ultimately own governments and control the legislation that is imposed on people, much of it to limit their ability to freely compete.

There never was true egalitarianism. There never was a society where people were all truly equal. All societies have had their leaders, their warrior class and their basic worker class. It's the ubiquitous pyramid.

Zomia is not a real society. It is a collection of people hiding from governments doing their individual things with everyone else who lives there respecting that right. The people come and go. It is certainly an example of pure anarchism, but it's not an example of a real society.

So, yes, under the current paradigm, the state is the best that we can do. We don't know how to live any other way.

[carolina73]

A bit heavy at this time of evening Chris, but what you have to remember is that these people were classical theorists who tried to make sense of a changing world from the agricultural to the industrial using philosophy. In their era it was quite possible to have a form of anarchism and the idea of individual freedom, but it makes no sense to populations of millions.

The idea of individual freedom is an impossibility, whether that be an allegiance to the strongest, or a tribal chief, or nowadays a country. Society precedes the individual and we are born into conformity. Those who previously didn’t conform were exiled from the ‘tribe’ or killed.

Marx like Bukharin also believed in an anarchist type of society, but where he differed is that he believed the state would eventually wither away. It didn’t. In that context there is no civil liberty and we are all constrained not only by the power of the state, but the values of those it represents.

There is no such thing as anarchy. The moment 2 people agree to watch each others back in mutual defense the created a government. If they just agreed to help each other in a hunt then someone took charge and they had a leader. The only anarchist will be the last man standing.

[Refugee]

There is no such thing as anarchy. The moment 2 people agree to watch each others back in mutual defense the created a government. If they just agreed to help each other in a hunt then someone took charge and they had a leader. The only anarchist will be the last man standing.

Agreed, it has been tried previously though and the idea does exist, but it fails. There are still some small collectives around who try to keep the idea alive, but anarchy can’t work outside small groups and as you say, in any group of two or more a leader will emerge.

[Chris]

I think that it's unavoidable. That pyramid of social order is intrinsic to our nature. The larger the population, the larger the pyramids. That's why the state evolved out of what we deem as anarchy today. The state is simply a massively inflated reflection of the human family, the human tribe, the human monarchy. While not suggesting that it's the best way or the only way, it's what we are accustomed to. It's how we grow up. Even among social animals, there is the same pyramidal structure. Mom and Dad don't consult the kids about every decision. Within a very small population there will be far more give and take, far more consideration of individual sensibilities and issues. On a vastly grander scale, that's simply not possible and the option to live in tiny cohesive communities is quickly becoming impossible for most people.

As a species, we have generally elevated material gain to the Holy Grail and businesses employ the best psychologists that money can buy to ensure that societies are brainwashed accordingly. It's not really much different than using religion to manipulate people and in the past we had top down control by the largest faiths and they too controlled people through psychology i.e. unless you comply with the Word, you will go to Hell and you will be rejected by all of society. In fact, you might be killed as a heretic. The failure today isn't so much the state per se, but the message that your worth is measured in conspicuous consumption and the moronic laws that give more rights of every kind to fictional humans, i.e. corporations. It has allowed corporations to become so wealthy and powerful that they buy candidates for government such that they ultimately own governments and control the legislation that is imposed on people, much of it to limit their ability to freely compete.

There never was true egalitarianism. There never was a society where people were all truly equal. All societies have had their leaders, their warrior class and their basic worker class. It's the ubiquitous pyramid.

Zomia is not a real society. It is a collection of people hiding from governments doing their individual things with everyone else who lives there respecting that right. The people come and go. It is certainly an example of pure anarchism, but it's not an example of a real society.

So, yes, under the current paradigm, the state is the best that we can do. We don't know how to live any other way.

I think that it's unavoidable. That pyramid of social order is intrinsic to our nature. The larger the population, the larger the pyramids.

Then explain why for 300000 years plus did humans exist with an egalitarian ethos, iow, without this "pyramid of social order," whatever that is, if that is man's nature?

As a species, we have generally elevated material gain to the Holy Grail and businesses employ the best psychologists...

Then explain why for 300000 years plus did humans exist with a subsistence economy without material gain beyond mere survival?

There never was true egalitarianism. There never was a society where people were all truly equal. All societies have had their leaders, their warrior class and their basic worker class. It's the ubiquitous pyramid.

And yet if you were to read any anthropologist on primitive peoples in the past and still exist they describe a people living with an egalitarian ethos without leaders?

Zomia is not a real society.

Spoken as a modern who denigrates what came before because what exists now is so much better.

So, yes, under the current paradigm, the state is the best that we can do. We don't know how to live any other way.

But we do. Except you want to denigrate those examples of people who live another way--when you're not denying their existence.

[Chris]

There is no such thing as anarchy. The moment 2 people agree to watch each others back in mutual defense the created a government. If they just agreed to help each other in a hunt then someone took charge and they had a leader. The only anarchist will be the last man standing.

Absolutely untrue. Hunter-gathers to this day live under an egalitarian ethos akin to anarchy, i.e., with rules but without leaders. Anyone individual who tried to step up and take charge was controlled by the group, ostracised and even executed. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest, after an extensive review of the anthropological literature, cites only a few exceptions to that rule. And this extended into larger tribes. See also Pierre Clastres's Society Against the State for more of the same.

[Refugee]

Absolutely untrue. Hunter-gathers to this day live under an egalitarian ethos akin to anarchy, i.e., with rules but without leaders. Anyone individual who tried to step up and take charge was controlled by the group, ostracised and even executed. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest, after an extensive review of the anthropological literature, cites only a few exceptions to that rule. And this extended into larger tribes. See also Pierre Clastres's Society Against the State for more of the same.

Chris, the hunter gatherer era ended 10K+ years ago just after the ice age, replaced by an agrarian society. You’re assuming theory as fact. Even anarchist collectives elect leaders by agreement.

[Chris]

Chris, the hunter gatherer era ended 10K+ years ago just after the ice age, replaced by an agrarian society. You’re assuming theory as fact. Even anarchist collectives elect leaders by agreement.

And the modern capitalistic, democratic, enlightened state, what, some 2-300 years ago? 300000 years egalitarian, 10000 mutually interdependent hierarchical social order based on family, religion and community. 300 years statism--drop in the bucket.

I'm citing anthropological findings of fact. Social contract is a theory.

What anarchist collectives are you talking about?