Provience
Kill!
A non-communist centered thread for discussing the failures and supposed virtues of Anarchy as a philosophy 
Anarchy has a very long history, it predates any sort of greater social order and exists in the primordial goo absent religion or society or anything. It only becomes an issue when conflict arises and that is when anarchy fails. 2 people can pass on the road and be fine, 2 societies cannot. At some level, anarchy falls flat on it's face.
famous examples of anarchy all leave a whole bunch to be desired and the greater the population density, the worse it is.
Stone Age people, such as Indians are a good example. In the USA and Canada and Northern Mexico, the population density was maybe 2 million, maybe a little bit more. same area now is over 400 million. With only a couple million, most of them were in the easy areas, coastal, hills, etc. get out to the edges of the plains or the desert where life is hard, raiders where common. Did the Kiowa or the Apache give a fuck about other societies when they decided to go an acquire slaves or food or whatever they wanted? nope. They may have had internal agreements, but they lived in a larger community of Anarchy and were as free as they could reach to do unto others as they saw fit.
This longstanding anarchy was also a big part of Tecumseh and his general failure of the larger pan-indian nation despite having the UK as a strong supporter. there may have been some temporary success, but nothing the sort that could be lasting with parity in arms. It was a social failure.
what about europe? The ancient greek's are a great example of anarchy. The rise of the city-state model of society lead to some massive gains, yet because of the close competition of the city states, they sharpened themselves largely on each other. what did this lead to? getting absolutely crushed, a couple times, from outside and near outside. Even with greatness, the internal strife remained. Ignore most of the editorial of this article, but the 400 BC quotes are entertaining. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-thucydides-knew-about-the-us-today?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Certainly nobody can do Anarchy better than the Africans of the forest and plains, right? I mean, hell, there is more internationally recognized anarchy there than anywhere today. There are purely equal tribes that still exist with no real strong king or queen or society really outside of a collection of huts, a group that passes on how to hunt or fish or grain for not much more than subsistence. certainly their greatness is the anarchy! No, because they also have a great long history of being pushed to whatever corner anybody who has either might or will that would rather be where they are. they accept high mortality and slavery as easy matters and make those neat /\ shaped population charts.
Afghanistan is a pretty interesting case. surely they've got to rank somewhere on the scale of anarchy. they are about the fringe end of Islam, easy example would be to consider the movie/book/event "lone survivor". American gets all fucked up, local afghani tribe generally keeps him from being outright killed. their reasons? they are Pashtun first, afghani's and muslims second. they don't really give that much of a shit about anybody and can be just fine with their anarchy in the hills. There is a great book "afghanistan: from alexander the great to fall of taliban" that has a quote from an afghani in ~19th century regarding the 1st/2nd british excursions. "We would rather fight each other, but we will serve no master" because they will gladly honor hundreds of years of tribal fighting over valley's and such. it's a reference to the notion that the only time pan-afghanistanism exists is when there is a real outside threat, a notion that is only sort of kind of valid. based on the sheer volume of people riding into their region and doing damn near whatever they want, the failure of Anarchy is again prevalent.
Mutual Defense. it isn't to say that some other forms of governance never get toppled or have issues, but are there any that have failed as quickly or easily as an Anarchist system?
Anarchy has a very long history, it predates any sort of greater social order and exists in the primordial goo absent religion or society or anything. It only becomes an issue when conflict arises and that is when anarchy fails. 2 people can pass on the road and be fine, 2 societies cannot. At some level, anarchy falls flat on it's face.
famous examples of anarchy all leave a whole bunch to be desired and the greater the population density, the worse it is.
Stone Age people, such as Indians are a good example. In the USA and Canada and Northern Mexico, the population density was maybe 2 million, maybe a little bit more. same area now is over 400 million. With only a couple million, most of them were in the easy areas, coastal, hills, etc. get out to the edges of the plains or the desert where life is hard, raiders where common. Did the Kiowa or the Apache give a fuck about other societies when they decided to go an acquire slaves or food or whatever they wanted? nope. They may have had internal agreements, but they lived in a larger community of Anarchy and were as free as they could reach to do unto others as they saw fit.
This longstanding anarchy was also a big part of Tecumseh and his general failure of the larger pan-indian nation despite having the UK as a strong supporter. there may have been some temporary success, but nothing the sort that could be lasting with parity in arms. It was a social failure.
what about europe? The ancient greek's are a great example of anarchy. The rise of the city-state model of society lead to some massive gains, yet because of the close competition of the city states, they sharpened themselves largely on each other. what did this lead to? getting absolutely crushed, a couple times, from outside and near outside. Even with greatness, the internal strife remained. Ignore most of the editorial of this article, but the 400 BC quotes are entertaining. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-thucydides-knew-about-the-us-today?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Certainly nobody can do Anarchy better than the Africans of the forest and plains, right? I mean, hell, there is more internationally recognized anarchy there than anywhere today. There are purely equal tribes that still exist with no real strong king or queen or society really outside of a collection of huts, a group that passes on how to hunt or fish or grain for not much more than subsistence. certainly their greatness is the anarchy! No, because they also have a great long history of being pushed to whatever corner anybody who has either might or will that would rather be where they are. they accept high mortality and slavery as easy matters and make those neat /\ shaped population charts.
Afghanistan is a pretty interesting case. surely they've got to rank somewhere on the scale of anarchy. they are about the fringe end of Islam, easy example would be to consider the movie/book/event "lone survivor". American gets all fucked up, local afghani tribe generally keeps him from being outright killed. their reasons? they are Pashtun first, afghani's and muslims second. they don't really give that much of a shit about anybody and can be just fine with their anarchy in the hills. There is a great book "afghanistan: from alexander the great to fall of taliban" that has a quote from an afghani in ~19th century regarding the 1st/2nd british excursions. "We would rather fight each other, but we will serve no master" because they will gladly honor hundreds of years of tribal fighting over valley's and such. it's a reference to the notion that the only time pan-afghanistanism exists is when there is a real outside threat, a notion that is only sort of kind of valid. based on the sheer volume of people riding into their region and doing damn near whatever they want, the failure of Anarchy is again prevalent.
Mutual Defense. it isn't to say that some other forms of governance never get toppled or have issues, but are there any that have failed as quickly or easily as an Anarchist system?
Logic says try something else, that's where I got to where I am political leaning wise. I like the mental exercise of it, obviously not going to actually do anything about it because who had the drones and spy satellites....