I think you're using very broad definitions of alot of things. But that doesn't really matter.

I don't think the world is exactly AnCap anymore.

Look at a light infantry regiment's TOE, A few trucks with radios, Assualt Rifles (STGs), Light Machine Guns and or Machine Rifles (LMG /MRs), body armor and helmets, what is so unreasonable about that?

not anymore, no, probably not. I say we live it because all it is basically advocating, is hitting the reset button on all of civilization. Not in a violent way. But there is nothing stopping us from ending up here again.

with all the advances in tech, we have not solved the main problem that lead from ancap to here: The human problem.

break down civilization back to our basic family tribes, nothing stops history from repeating itself

I'd disagree. There have been ideas that have reached basically everywhere.

You'd have to get rid of those ideas.

And the techonologies.

you have to get rid of a lot of ideas to get to ancap

If you wanted to reset civilization in that way.

then you need to keep them from coming back

Soooo according to Realist philosophy each Sovereign State acts within their own interests and any interactions or agreements with other States are still within said interests of the States involved. One could see this from an AnCap perspective and consider the State as individuals in a sense.

Yeah, I was thinking somethign along those lines when Grenade originally said what he did.

The issue is that the UN is a thing.

im generalizing to a degree admittedly

Realism is both depressing and interesting, i recommend reading into it

given that most ancaps i talk to accept at least some kind of tribe in the form of voluntary communities, i fail to really see how a state is not just a very very very large community.

I'm quite fond of realism and structuralism in global politics.

outside of defining a size from which that changes

I think it makes way more sense than the touchy-feely schools of thought.

/\

i just couldnt get into naturalism or whatever its called

Part of Realism is the belief in a "world in chaos"

and that is due to Sovereignty

Pure rationalism has it's problems.

oh def

Like, cooperation is entirely reasonable.

But at the core, the argument that nations and groups are primarily going to further their interests always seemed sound to me.

yep

that is because everything you do, usually is in your own self-interest. Even the most altruistic are doing it for a feel good feeling.

although i can be super depressing when you realize that some State will do fucked up shit

I mean...that's society as a whole.

and technically under realism they are within their sovereign rights to do so

The world is a dark place.

most people do something fucked up. most groups usually end up with something fucked. just keep scaling and get the state, doing "small fucked up things" that are massive just because of the scale the state exists on

its why i don't like the feds having too much power. At a certain level you are just too big to remember the cells you are made up of.

So a post-modernist would actually argue that "fucked up shit" is inherently colored by one's moral code.

how many of the cells in your body do you kill of doing something stupid.

imagine if those cells were people

congrats, you are now any leader ever.