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

there was no "democractically elected tribe member"

And convened in councils,

And you know, got nothing done without consensus

to be powerful

and recognised

gets you the percentage of leadership

But we're not talking about power recognition, we're talking about not existing in a state

such is the disputes of nobles and kings

You can have recognized individuals

People of prestige for any manner of things

It still doesnt mean those individuals harness the power of the state lmao

state -the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.

now think

No

False

The state beinf

Institutions bud

......

Literally the concept of territory, ans the power to harness the legitimate use of force

you are very clearly arrogant of what ancient politics was and is

Over said territory

We arent talking about the "state of being"

Of a particular person

Dont be so literal