Im simply saying states arent the reality of nature

And that to pretend otherwise is _foolish_

I guess the word would be.

states are a product of the emmergence of society, even a mobile state is a state.

Given all we know about tribes, the experminents in the 1800s

Its simply a matter of not getting murdered in infancy lmao

So no, order, organization,

Is a product of the emergence of society

Not states.

pathetic

You can very much have organization, without a state.

Regardless as to whether or not you think its pathetic or not.

Humanity says otherwise.

I think you might be apart of that group lol.

no, but clearly states and society go hand in hand with co-operation of peoples of an ethnic group

that is how it was

Or they dont, and didnt, until imposed.

not how it is so much now

yes

By you know, elites

Because thats how you consolidate power.

But then are we over the point about them being stable then?

and where the hell do you think the entireity of human history has existed in? what political territory? the territory of absolute leadership of a few individuals controlling the wealth and interests of others

no

they aren't stable

simply because

But they are, and the entirety of human history wasnt whatever empire you glorify lmao

they are too busy conflicting with members of the opposite ideology

no

Those are relatively short periods of time, harnessing relatively few people.

but it was totalitarian

you have to be joking

...

you are suggesting totalitarian rule was a small part of history?

if you are

we can stop this conversation right now

And again, tribes, early humans, everything we know, shows it wasnt unnatural, nor unstable to not have a state

And,

Im suggesting in the scope of humanity,

tribes had leaders, regardless of what you think

Yes, that didnt have coercive power of the state