Nah it's good, I'm only looking for short answers!
Have you read into the last era of the Roman Empire and the start of the Dark Ages?
I haven't read about it on my own time, but I remember some of what I was taught of it. From what I can tell, the Dark Ages came about because of a struggle between different groups of people trying to grab power.
If humans did not naturally tend towards governance through tribalism, there would not be a government.
Humans tend to respect and imitate those who are stronger and smarter, but this isn't the same as obedience. The concept of government is about obedience, not necessarily about choosing to follow leaders.
Pay with what, seashells?
With whatever currency they want.
A very good point for government is the existence of currency.
Not really. Currencies can exist without government, because people can create and agree on the value of a currency without it being regulated. Cryptocurrencies are a good example.
On another note, imagining a working currency could exist sustainably without regulation. Why would anyone want to receive money from someone weaker for protection if they can just take it by force?
Why are you automatically assuming that those who offer protection will force others to pay them, and that others wouldn't resist?
By the way, this is exactly what governments do now: they force society to pay for services such as these.
It's not a question of making sure enough people agree. It's about making sure those that don't agree aren't abusing those that might.
And governments are no guarantee that those in it won't abuse their power. In fact, it makes it much more likely, because people view their power as
legitimate. This is the main point of Larken Rose's article I linked to in my original post.
Like I said earlier, systems in place prevent laws being passed that do not benefit the population. That's how democracy works. The politicians are NOT above the law, nor does anyone think they should be.
It doesn't matter if the politicians "are not above the law" if they have the power to decide "the law" in the first place, which is the entire idea behind "government" and "authority".
Thousands of years of evidence that say humans are social creatures disagree with your points against my earlier statements.
Humans being social creatures has nothing to do with government or authority. People can cooperate and organize voluntarily without having a coercive institution deciding how society will function.
Secondly, all of your points assume that humans are natural the most kindhearted and understanding creatures, and that if we get rid of government, all the bad people vanish.
This is not what I'm suggesting or believe at all.
It's extremely confusing to me how you think politicians are bad people and yet seem to think a society without any laws wouldn't have people abusing it?
A society without governments means bad people won't be able to abuse and manipulate others as much as in a society
with governments, because the majority won't believe these bad people have to be obeyed.
Also, you included a quote in your article to support your ideas from a person (Edmund Burke) who was a huge supporter of Government. This has nothing to do with the discussion but I found it somewhat ironic so I just thought I'd share.
Yes, and he was wrong.
Exactly, and you don't think the likelihood of a ruler appearing in an anarchy is higher than a leader? I sure do.
Anarchy literally means "no rulers". On the other hand, like I mentioned before,
governments are inherently ruling classes, because they issue commands called "laws" that they impose on society.
No part of the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or any form of documentation or statue that gives the government its power, states that the people have to obey those they elect.
This is incorrect. Look at the very first part of the U.S. Constitution.
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
"Legislative powers" are powers to force society to obey those with these powers.
I think it may be that you've got "obeying the law" confused with "obeying people in power". They are not the same thing.
They
absolutely are. The only reason the law is enforced is because those in government with authority have passed them, which means you're primarily obeying
them, not the law. In addition, if the politicians repeal a law, it doesn't have to be obeyed anymore, which again implies that the notion of government is about obeying those with power in it.
Again, it feels like you seem to think that because there's no government, social hierarchies would cease to exist and that a difference in power wouldn't create a ruling class.
When society doesn't establish governments anymore, it will be because people understand that governments are ruling classes that are illegitimate and don't have to be obeyed.
One of the two is true if that is the case; you're overlooking that practically guaranteed scenario of the morally unjust but physically/emotionally/resourcefully strong ruling, or you think that every human in an anarchy is a symbol of morality and goodness. I can't say I agree with either.
I don't believe any of this. Without the power that governments grant,
no one can rule. Also, like I said before, I don't believe everyone is nice. I just believe society will be a lot better off without coercive institutions that use force like governments.