We do live in an anarchist world

[FCTaiChi]

In adult life, the State is certainly the bully most to be feared most of the time by most people, but... I don't see a clear point of transition in life - the "-archy" asserts itself at birth, although not usually in the form of the State.

I'm starting to think there are "good -archy" components, such as potty training or driving on only one side of the road, but that in attempting to enumerate them we would all disagree, eventually leading to some version of where we are now - a myriad of laws that nobody much likes.

I think the dividing line is this:

A good rule or law assists and streamlines society. Ignoring such a rule causes chaos and damage to the community. (Seat belts, driving on the right side of the road, simple contract law, industry standards)

A bad rule or law oppresses and consolidates control into certain groups or institutions. Society would function better if it ceased to exist. (monopoly, barriers to market entry, excessive taxation, back-room committees, frivolous fines, the war on drugs, militarization of police)

There is a big problem when deciding what a good law and bad law are.  For instance it could be considered that not wearing a seat belt is a victimless crime, why make a law about it.  What gives another person the right to take their money because they are taking unneeded risk?  It's different if that risk is something like tailgating, I really wish there was something I could do about that..  I consider it a threat to my life.  I don't care if they're not wearing their belt if that's what they want, just don't increase my chances of dieing.
Monopoly laws don't work, but it would be really nice to not have corporations that are more powerful than many governments around the world.

I agree with your point, and most of your divisions.  It just seems like a difficult thing to do.

[Mike Christ]

There is a big problem when deciding what a good law and bad law are.  For instance it could be considered that not wearing a seat belt is a victimless crime, why make a law about it.  What gives another person the right to take their money because they are taking unneeded risk?  It's different if that risk is something like tailgating, I really wish there was something I could do about that..  I consider it a threat to my life.  I don't care if they're not wearing their belt if that's what they want, just don't increase my chances of dieing.
Monopoly laws don't work, but it would be really nice to not have corporations that are more powerful than many governments around the world.

I agree with your point, and most of your divisions.  It just seems like a difficult thing to do.

In my short time of having a driver's license, I've accumulated 500$ worth of fines for one simple crime: invalid inspection.  However, because I really don't have any money to fix whatever is wrong with my car (been working on it for 2-3 years and I still can't figure out why the stupid light won't turn off), I wind up putting up with a pointless law and dodging police, despite my car running in fine shape.  I've considered circumventing the law by getting a fake inspection sticker but have yet to find a guy who'll do it for me, so it gets to the point where I try not to go out after the sun rises, and coming home is no big deal during rush hour since cops can't weed through that kind of traffic or even spot me.

Anyway, back on the topic of good law/bad law, I don't believe any law is good, for it assumes people are too inept to figure out why the law is there in the first place.  There's a reason why we don't drive on the wrong side of the road, and there's no law that's going to stop anyone from accidentally doing so.  What are we gonna do, fine them when they're dead?  If you have a group of people who are stupid enough to intentionally drive on the wrong side of the road, however, you have a much bigger issue than this law being violated, which I assume would be violent suicidal kamikaze teens.  All the law is, is a bandaid, and whatever problem it hopes to cure, will not, not on its own.  It's just an expensive overhead which has the bonus effect of keeping the poor, poor, while diverting funds to whoever's top dog.

There's just no law that can replace reason.  "If I drive on the wrong side of the road, I will die."  Okay, good; perfectly logical.  So what should we do?  "We must create a law."  Because people are too dumb to simply drive on the right side of the road, ammirite?  Or how about this one:  "Killing is bad.  We shouldn't kill other people."  Fine by me.  "We must create a law."  What for?  With all the murders which happen all the time in America specifically, it's obviously not helping, unless we assume that without the law, people would drop their entire lives and go on mass killing sprees daily.  But this assumes all people are very evil deep inside, which is funny:

"Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it."
--Niccolo Machiavelli

[aigeezer]

There is a big problem when deciding what a good law and bad law are.  For instance it could be considered that not wearing a seat belt is a victimless crime, why make a law about it.  What gives another person the right to take their money because they are taking unneeded risk?  It's different if that risk is something like tailgating, I really wish there was something I could do about that..  I consider it a threat to my life.  I don't care if they're not wearing their belt if that's what they want, just don't increase my chances of dieing.
Monopoly laws don't work, but it would be really nice to not have corporations that are more powerful than many governments around the world.

I agree with your point, and most of your divisions.  It just seems like a difficult thing to do.

In my short time of having a driver's license, I've accumulated 500$ worth of fines for one simple crime: invalid inspection.  However, because I really don't have any money to fix whatever is wrong with my car (been working on it for 2-3 years and I still can't figure out why the stupid light won't turn off), I wind up putting up with a pointless law and dodging police, despite my car running in fine shape.  I've considered circumventing the law by getting a fake inspection sticker but have yet to find a guy who'll do it for me, so it gets to the point where I try not to go out after the sun rises, and coming home is no big deal during rush hour since cops can't weed through that kind of traffic or even spot me.

Anyway, back on the topic of good law/bad law, I don't believe any law is good, for it assumes people are too inept to figure out why the law is there in the first place.  There's a reason why we don't drive on the wrong side of the road, and there's no law that's going to stop anyone from accidentally doing so.  What are we gonna do, fine them when they're dead?  If you have a group of people who are stupid enough to intentionally drive on the wrong side of the road, however, you have a much bigger issue than this law being violated, which I assume would be violent suicidal kamikaze teens.  All the law is, is a bandaid, and whatever problem it hopes to cure, will not, not on its own.  It's just an expensive overhead which has the bonus effect of keeping the poor, poor, while diverting funds to whoever's top dog.

There's just no law that can replace reason.  "If I drive on the wrong side of the road, I will die."  Okay, good; perfectly logical.  So what should we do?  "We must create a law."  Because people are too dumb to simply drive on the right side of the road, ammirite?  Or how about this one:  "Killing is bad.  We shouldn't kill other people."  Fine by me.  "We must create a law."  What for?  With all the murders which happen all the time in America specifically, it's obviously not helping, unless we assume that without the law, people would drop their entire lives and go on mass killing sprees daily.  But this assumes all people are very evil deep inside, which is funny:

"Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it."
--Niccolo Machiavelli

I am sympathetic to your points.

The "side of the road" is an excellent theme to probe though. It is clearly not the case that one side is better than the other. People in Japan or Britain routinely drive on the "other" side compared, say, to North America. Nevertheless, it is in our interest to all drive on the same side, whichever side it is, until some appropriate community boundary makes it OK to drive on the other side - say an ocean between communities. The issue then becomes how to make the decision. Society seems to have no mechanism in place other than "law of the land", as dictated by whomever. What, exactly, should we (could we) do instead? Much of my life I've been waiting and hoping for the Net to (somehow) take on that role - some kind of (fair) forum to reach consensus. Every year it gets a bit closer, yet slips away at the same time.

Edit: Doh - why don't we build one road that goes from Wizzleton to Wozzleton and another that goes from Wozzleton to Wizzleton? We never did that, back in the days of goat paths, and then I guess one thing led to another, as it were, until we got traffic police. Paths of least resistance. Today's problems are yesterday's solutions.

 

[aigeezer]

In adult life, the State is certainly the bully most to be feared most of the time by most people, but... I don't see a clear point of transition in life - the "-archy" asserts itself at birth, although not usually in the form of the State.

I'm starting to think there are "good -archy" components, such as potty training or driving on only one side of the road, but that in attempting to enumerate them we would all disagree, eventually leading to some version of where we are now - a myriad of laws that nobody much likes.

I think the dividing line is this:

A good rule or law assists and streamlines society. Ignoring such a rule causes chaos and damage to the community. (Seat belts, driving on the right side of the road, simple contract law, industry standards)

A bad rule or law oppresses and consolidates control into certain groups or institutions. Society would function better if it ceased to exist. (monopoly, barriers to market entry, excessive taxation, back-room committees, frivolous fines, the war on drugs, militarization of police)

There is a big problem when deciding what a good law and bad law are.  For instance it could be considered that not wearing a seat belt is a victimless crime, why make a law about it.  What gives another person the right to take their money because they are taking unneeded risk?  It's different if that risk is something like tailgating, I really wish there was something I could do about that..  I consider it a threat to my life.  I don't care if they're not wearing their belt if that's what they want, just don't increase my chances of dieing.
Monopoly laws don't work, but it would be really nice to not have corporations that are more powerful than many governments around the world.

I agree with your point, and most of your divisions.  It just seems like a difficult thing to do.

Since I'm claiming we all tend to disagree when we try to find common ground about "good" rules and "bad" rules, I'll take on the devil's advocate role re the seatbelt issue. This is a bit difficult, since I normally agree with your position on the issue.

However... those who say the seatbelt issue has victims use examples such as "society has to pay the medical bills" or "the real victim is the child who loses a parent because the parent was not wearing a seat belt."

Here's a contrived example that gives me pause - suppose you are involved in a head-on collision near a small town; the other driver was not wearing a seatbelt; the one surgeon on duty decides that the other driver's injuries require more immediate attention (no seatbelt, after all); unfortunately, you succumb to your lesser injuries while waiting your turn for surgery (I'm sorry).

In this example, are you the (unintentional) victim of the other driver's decision not to wear a seat belt?

[BTCLuke]

Elwar, to date you and I have seen eye to eye on everything, but the title on this post pisses me off!

Yes, I know what you mean, we all experience a harmonic anarchy most every day. When I went to the grocery store today, I followed the stores rules and the society around me followed etiquette and everything went smoothly with no state intrusion whatsoever. Harmony without rulers. Check.

BUT... To state that the "World is anarchist" is spitting in the face of freedom! For the world to be anarchist today, I'd think there needs to be no democide going on anywhere, no prisons full of people who aren't real murderers, no corporatism nor cronyism, and of course no freaking tax farms with arbitrary borders!

It's kinda insulting, at least the title is. You're almost denying the sacrifice of everyone who ever died from democide.

Setting that aside, I've got one other major beef with your OP. You clearly are making a strawman argument with what your vision of a world in anarchy would be like during this part:

At that point you face a choice. Are you more powerful than that dude? Can you continue drinking without him interfering? You may be bigger so you stand up to him telling him that you are a free person that can do whatever he wants. The dude disagrees and pulls a gun. In this anarchist world, survival of the fittest prevails. You are subject to that person's whim because he has more power than you do. He can now use his gun to take you prisoner for as long as he and his friends think is right in their own eyes.

In a world without rulers, there would be other pressures and circumstances that you are not taking into consideration here. The scenario would go very differently indeed if it escalated past politeness.

For one thing there is a thing called Assurance. For another, there is Private Security.

All three parties involved, you, the belligerent, and the owner of the land you're standing on, would likely each have their own private security force with different levels of service... And different Assurance companies too. (With their different levels of service.)

So it's obviously complicated, depending on many variables like who's paid up on their contracts with 3rd parties and other things we probably can't think of today... So it really cannot be compared to either this society or one where chaos rules. Anarchy would be a beautiful existence where the inhabitants view today's society like we view monkey societies at a zoo.

I'm excited to be part of the transition. Bitcoin -will- be a big part of that, I'm convinced.

[Mike Christ]

I am sympathetic to your points.

The "side of the road" is an excellent theme to probe though. It is clearly not the case that one side is better than the other. People in Japan or Britain routinely drive on the "other" side compared, say, to North America. Nevertheless, it is in our interest to all drive on the same side, whichever side it is, until some appropriate community boundary makes it OK to drive on the other side - say an ocean between communities. The issue then becomes how to make the decision. Society seems to have no mechanism in place other than "law of the land", as dictated by whomever. What, exactly, should we (could we) do instead? Much of my life I've been waiting and hoping for the Net to (somehow) take on that role - some kind of (fair) forum to reach consensus. Every year it gets a bit closer, yet slips away at the same time.

Most of the world drives on the right side, so it seems that the communities which drive on the left side would be getting the harsher end of the problem; nonetheless, it would simply be up to whatever people are doing in any specific country which dictates which side of the road to drive on.  If we can apply "reason" to current law, lets say, by law, a sign is required to stay up which reminds drivers that they must drive on a specific side of the road in any given country.



So lets say, because we decide that we don't want those silly tourists who drive on the wrong side of the road hitting us Australians, as that would be terribly dangerous, its decided that having these signs up is in our benefit.  So, in an anarchistic society, you could either find some people who'll chip in to pay for the sign or figure, what the hell, you'll throw in enough cash for one sign and say you done good for a cause you believe in.  So the sign goes up that says, "Drive on the left", reminding people that they're on the wrong side that most everyone drives on.  I've never seen a sign like this in the west so I wouldn't know what it's like to be the guy who drives on the left side of the road, but generally, people are trained to drive on one side uniformly and no law is required to ensure this happens; even if you decided to teach someone to drive on the wrong side of the road, just for giggles, they'd likely not stick with it for long whenever faced with any real amount of traffic.  By now, most societies are accustomed to either side, and it's unlikely that a massive influx of other-siders will ever find themselves in a country and wind up changing the normal driving patterns, which I presume will cause a lot of wrecks before people finally figured out which side they'll pick.  Would a law help here?  Maybe.  But the sacrifice of freedom doesn't seem worth it, as a law which states "Drive on the left side, or else", requires there to be a central force with enough strength to enforce such laws.  I'd rather people figure out what they want by themselves, and in this case, it's either or; the majority always wins when it comes to which side of the road we're driving on, as it's always harder for the other-sider to show what he believes in.  Once this "vote" is done, it sticks, unless you get yet another influx of other-sider foreigners but that just seems like a wild country to live in.  Generally, though, as I said before, people go with what the crowd's doing, if to stray invokes injury or death.

I'm interesting in knowing how North Africans and South Africans solve this issue, however...

[Elwar]

Elwar, to date you and I have seen eye to eye on everything, but the title on this post pisses me off!

Yes, I know what you mean, we all experience a harmonic anarchy most every day. When I went to the grocery store today, I followed the stores rules and the society around me followed etiquette and everything went smoothly with no state intrusion whatsoever. Harmony without rulers. Check.

BUT... To state that the "World is anarchist" is spitting in the face of freedom! For the world to be anarchist today, I'd think there needs to be no democide going on anywhere, no prisons full of people who aren't real murderers, no corporatism nor cronyism, and of course no freaking tax farms with arbitrary borders!

It's kinda insulting, at least the title is. You're almost denying the sacrifice of everyone who ever died from democide.

Setting that aside, I've got one other major beef with your OP. You clearly are making a strawman argument with what your vision of a world in anarchy would be like during this part:

At that point you face a choice. Are you more powerful than that dude? Can you continue drinking without him interfering? You may be bigger so you stand up to him telling him that you are a free person that can do whatever he wants. The dude disagrees and pulls a gun. In this anarchist world, survival of the fittest prevails. You are subject to that person's whim because he has more power than you do. He can now use his gun to take you prisoner for as long as he and his friends think is right in their own eyes.

In a world without rulers, there would be other pressures and circumstances that you are not taking into consideration here. The scenario would go very differently indeed if it escalated past politeness.

For one thing there is a thing called Assurance. For another, there is Private Security.

That is what I was talking about when talking about you and your friends having enough power to make the power of the other moot. Call them friends, call them paid security or whichever.

The statement of an anarchist world goes along the lines of being born with inalienable rights. That is just something you are born with, everything from there on is thrust upon you such as the prisons, taxes, borders, etc.

But in a world of survival of the fittest, those that organize their protection win out. It just so happens that this has happened. The US government has amassed great power, and they are more fit than me or you in this world of survival of the fittest.

That is why I am saying that just like in the world of currencies, the Federal Reserve has reigned as the ruler of money in the US. The solution is not to end the Fed or destroy the dollar. But to build an alternative that is better. I believe that is also the best way forward when dealing with governments. Not to try to end them or bring them down, but to create a better alternative based on voluntary decentralized power.

In such a way that the 18 year old scenario would be more like this:
You leave home at 18 taking along a bottle of champagne to the local park. You go to take a drink and a guy stops you.
At that point you face a choice. Are you more powerful than that dude? Can you continue drinking without him interfering? You may be bigger so you stand up to him telling him that you are a free person that can do whatever he wants. The dude disagrees and pulls a gun. He tells you that the park was created by the Conservative Prohibition Club and one of their rules for the park is that nobody can drink alcohol on their property. He tells you that he belongs to their security force, CPC security and that he has jurisdiction on all property belonging to that club. But he tells you that the Liberty Alliance has a park just down the road that allows drinking whatever you want. They have a Liberty Alliance security force that is just as powerful as the CPC security so they leave each other alone, besides both security forces get partial funding from the Stop the Violence Association who's explicit goal is to prevent security forces that they fund from interfering with one another or face the loss of funding.
You move along to the Liberty Alliance park and enjoy a good drink with like minded people.

[aigeezer]

I'm interesting in knowing how North Africans and South Africans solve this issue, however...

Yeah, it's best to explore the driving-side issue as a thought experiment "what should we have done around 1905" or what should a car-less society do about the issue now (assuming the car manufacturers don't get their say in first)?

There are situations in which people fall into easy agreement, sometimes even in large groups - "the wave" in a sports stadium or synchronized (leaderless) clapping at a concert, for instance, but they are unusual, I think. Modern media seem able to instill a thoughtless effortless synchrony of opinion in large groups, but of course it's a manipulative (led) phenomenon.

How, exactly, should/would/could people reach consensus about driving side when there are still few cars and roads? Will they wait for some collisions - that seems the most likely behavior, but then what? Population would be relatively sparse (few cars yet), so... spontaneous (leaderless) meetings?... I doubt it, people are busy living their lives. As far as I can tell, nothing happens until there is a champion of some kind. Perhaps someone whose car crashed, or an onlooker who was deeply moved at the sight, or... a world-improving meddling wannabe leader, and away we go toward the State, in a series of innocent-seeming increments.

I've watched people in similar situations for many years. Someone always seems to have a flair for delegation, saying "let's make some signs. Joe, why don't you make the posts, and Bob - can you get your wife to paint the letters, blah blah" Perhaps some other person will say "no we should do X instead." The main attribute seems to be boldness, self-assurance, rather than, say, problem-solving skill. In any case, the group will typically fall into line under one or another of the new leaders. Over time, the group leader is just part of the culture, and a State is born. It all starts so innocently (maybe it's as simple as Myers-Briggs typology), but we (humanity in groups) seem to be hard-wired for it.

[wolverine.ks]

finally someone else gets it. it took me a while to get to libertarian, less time to NAP, and less time still to the opinion of the OP.

some people only go so far and then stop when it's either difficult or convenient.

I'm glad I found this board with so many opinions and yet so much in common.

elwar has consistently good posts, but I think I'll pay even more attention now.

[BTCLuke]

The statement of an anarchist world goes along the lines of being born with inalienable rights. That is just something you are born with, everything from there on is thrust upon you such as the prisons, taxes, borders, etc.

But in a world of survival of the fittest, those that organize their protection win out. It just so happens that this has happened. The US government has amassed great power, and they are more fit than me or you in this world of survival of the fittest.

If this were true, and the government organization is just "the fittest" then it would stand to reason that it truly is impossible to be without a government-like entity at the top of all civilizations everywhere, at every time, right?

Maybe some would be less bloodthirsty and less evil than our present ones are, but that sounds like the gist of your point; that governments are inevitable, even in anarchy, because we still haven't left a civilization where survival of the fittest is in play.

Just one little problem with that... What about all the times through history when there WAS NO government?

Historical examples of Anarchy without Chaos

Are these all just short-lived flukes where something in society WAS ruling in some way because he was the fittest?

[wolverine.ks]

there is no such thing as 'inalienable rights' only preferences exist.

we live in a 'might makes right' world. the real trick was convincing people that rights exist as well as morality and ethics.
 these things are merely a collective behavior prefered by some. once you look at the world with this information, a whole bunch of stuff starts to make sense.

[BTCLuke]

there is no such thing as 'inalienable rights' only preferences exist.

we live in a 'might makes right' world. the real trick was convincing people that rights exist as well as morality and ethics.

Being an atheist & an anarchist I've never believed that anyone had the power to grant me any rights, but I do believe that all of humanity that has at least 2 brain cells to rub together has figured out the value in the golden rule.

And if they choose to follow the golden rule, at least at the bare minimum, they should be adding their consent to the public opinion that we all have some kind of 'right' to not be trespassed upon.

I call that morality. It may not be tangible, but it exists and would exist in a vacuum because all thinking humans prefer to not be trespassed upon.

The sad state of our present world is not caused by a lack of this; it is caused by misguided education twisting the truth about what the golden rule means, to serve the few on top. (Elwar's fittest.)


EDIT: I am ok with a large organization that is truly the fittest rising to the top... But the fact that they twist everyone's mind with shitty education to believe that they aren't just the fittest is immoral and IHMO, evil.

[wolverine.ks]

it's impossible to want to be trespassed upon..... if you wanted it, then it wouldn't be trespassing.

the value of the golden rule? people that value the golden rule are people that believe in god and/or karma.

there is no value otherwise.

in reality, the people that get the most out of the golden rule are the people that don't follow it. e.g. if I convince you not to steal because you don't want others to steal from you, then I steal from you... who has benefited and who has not?

[wolverine.ks]

additionally,

government doesn't exist. it is merely several people, each acting in their own best self interest. the fact that they call themselves something is irrelevant. don't lose the trees in the forest.  they call themselves something to distract you and to remove accountability. companies do the same thing. you don't sue the individual, you sue the company. that way the individual has concentrated benefits and shared costs. governments are just a variation of a company.

you don't always need a government like entity, but you will always have people competing for limited resources. and that means exploring the means to obtain those resources. if the economics of that location and that time and those people and those resources allow for a government like entity to be a competitive way of obtaining those resources, then and only then will you have a lasting government like entity.

in short, survival of the fittest, but 'fittest' varies by location and time.

[BTCLuke]

The sad state of our present world is not caused by a lack of this; it is caused by misguided education twisting the truth about what the golden rule means, to serve the few on top.

the value of the golden rule? people that value the golden rule are people that believe in god and/or karma.

Looks like someone here still believes in their public education's definition of the golden rule!

D'oh!

All the golden rule means is don't kick me in the nuts and I am not likely to kick you in the nuts either... There is no implied threat of 3rd-party intervention, it's just improves your odds of not getting your balls bent... Therefore it is PRACTICAL & DESIRABLE for everybody to NOT KICK ANYONE IN THE NUTS.

This is pure cause & effect at work. To not "value" the golden rule is like not valuing a ceramic plate shattering when you drop it on the floor... It don't give a shit if you are smart enough to conceive it or not. It's going to shatter.

Therefore, the basis for morality is practicality. We just ascribe human emotions to it like feeling the need to value things that are going to happen whether or not we give a shit.

it's impossible to want to be trespassed upon..... if you wanted it, then it wouldn't be trespassing.

Picky, picky. The point stands.

[BTCLuke]

government doesn't exist. it is merely several people, each acting in their own best self interest. the fact that they call themselves something is irrelevant. don't lose the trees in the forest.  they call themselves something to distract you and to remove accountability. companies do the same thing. you don't sue the individual, you sue the company. that way the individual has concentrated benefits and shared costs. governments are just a variation of a company.

Oh boy.

Last time I got into this argument it went south fast.

The thing about the government "not existing" is that the sum of its' component parts has the ability to commit such atrocities that it's ludicreous to think a single person or even a group of unafilliated people could do without being "a government."

A government of course is a delusion, but since the sheeple decide to give it their power, it is a delusion with more power than any other person or form of group could possibly grab.

Therefore it is something that should be fought. It always, without fail, makes the world a worse place wherever it rears its' ugly head.

[wolverine.ks]

so the golden rule is a general description of human retaliation? OK. but how is that morality?


you can draw a circle around any persons that are committing atrocities and claim that the sum of it's components have the ability to commit atrocities. why draw the circle around the exact things that those people want you to?

[BTCLuke]

so the golden rule is a general description of human retaliation? OK. but how is that morality?

It's a general description of the common idea to avoid situations where you will likely be retaliated against.

That's a basis for morality. Don't kick others because consequenses ensue. -Of course we humans with our emotions make believe it's much deeper than that.

you can draw a circle around any persons that are committing atrocities and claim that the sum of it's components have the ability to commit atrocities. why draw the circle around the exact things that those people want you to?

Well I don't, but I imagine that the masses do and I try to talk about their entity.

In my mind, the US government includes the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, Monsanto, and a ton of other non-government-employees who literally control the processes. I only talk about this 'version' of the government with people like yourself who have been verified to not go "baaaa."

[KornShell]

Hey, BTCLuke, that's a great reference at  Historical examples of Anarchy without Chaos

wolverine.ks obviously didn't read it, as it is voluminous.  I read (so far) just the part on Ireland.  Wonderful stuff.

[Elwar]

Maybe some would be less bloodthirsty and less evil than our present ones are, but that sounds like the gist of your point; that governments are inevitable, even in anarchy, because we still haven't left a civilization where survival of the fittest is in play.

Just one little problem with that... What about all the times through history when there WAS NO government?

Historical examples of Anarchy without Chaos

I am not saying that governments are inevitable, but that there has to be something in place for each person to be protected from the formation of power greater than them.

The wild west is a great example of no government but a culture built upon self reliance and self defense. Being good with your gun was common, carrying guns was common. The wife and kids at home knowing how to shoot a rifle or shotgun was common. It was common for a reason. They also had the ability to raise a posse and organize spontaneously as people were more grounded and knew everyone in town, so going up against one person was going up against the whole town if you were being predatory.

In Iceland they had a great form of electing people to represent them in a competitive way and organize protection against other groups. It worked well until something more powerful, the Catholic church, came along and tipped the balance.

The absense of government will not necessarily create government but it will at least be replaced by people cooperating with one another in a way to best increase their ability to protect themselves. If everyone has equal power then the golden rule is a given, it is in both of their best interests to do so. With an unequal balance of power the one with the power gets to decide if the golden rule is followed, our US government has demonstrated that it does not need to follow that rule against those that are weaker.