Message from @Dwarforn
Discord ID: 493392735047516171
A heirachy is like a set of stairs, and people are either higher of lower
With modern tech it can encompass a whole country
As long as there is no coercion or involuntary payment to the chief, I dont see whats so wrong
Yes, higher or lower in the 'pecking order'
I.e. aristocracy
There is no guarantee that warlords will take over, but being content with the state we have now IS
How would the cheiftain be payed, would they be appointed it while they work their main job, or would it be an elder.
If it was an elder who is unable to work, what would happen?
"As long as there is no coercion or involuntary payment to the chief" <- magical thinking right here
One sec brb
Chieftain tax for sure
It could be negligible though, equating to the adverage wage
With mediaeval tech it can encompass a whole country
Modern tech can encompass the whole world, which is what seems to be happening
Ok so how is it magical thinking? @MuChaDo
"As long as there is no coercion or involuntary payment to the chief" - if the chief is the one who makes the rules, how is this to be guaranteed?
Anarchism doesnt work, never worked, and will undoubtedly end in death as people accumilate power within the system.
individual localised cases are irrelivant since they operated on tribalism
You are stating the itent for a anarchistic system, which is where there are no heirachies
In a tribe of ten, I dont think the chief will have much of a chance if he starts creating crazy laws for his tribe. Considering the chief is often quite older aswell @MuChaDo
Tribalism and Anarchy are opposing ideologies
anarchy works until the guy with the gun shows up takes over the power and anyone that refuse get a bullet
Tribal Capitalism is the only example you have mentioned that worked. They do not operate through Anarchy
Yes, I know that hierarchies are inevitable in the private sector, but I see no reason for a select group of people to take the fruits of our labour by force and encapsulate us in their geographic region of operation. Force is active and therefore carries the burden of proof, this is the one thing the state has not fulfilled
@Nordhand Not when there are 100 people with guns also pointing theirs at the agressors head
"In a tribe of ten" - what limits tribes to 10? This is survival of the strongest isn't it?
what you say you want is not Anarchal
Also noted is that you accept the existence of tribes but somehow object to the notion of warlords
it is defined as "Neotribal capitalism"
I have heard this point by lib-socs before, the definition of anarchy has changed from "no hierarchies", to "no state" @Dwarforn
but at the end of the day its semantics
@MuChaDo In most tribes the peasants are greater in numbers than the rule-developing entity
But not in firepower
i.e. military capability
yes, but the employers of the said peasants have more power
becuase they have greater wealth
Screw communism, but what stops them becoming the societal equivalent of Tsarist nobles
Also the 'rule developing entity' functions as a single entity, but the 'peasants' are individuals or at best small groups
Well not really, both the employer and the employee benefit from eachother symbiotically. The employer values the labour more than the $10 and the employee values the $10 more than the labour. Therefore what stops them from becoming agressive cunts is the fact that productivity is lessened when the incentive to work is decreased seeing as you will die if you work as quickly as if you dont @Dwarforn This was one of the failures of the USSR
@MuChaDo Ancapistan will most likely be formed in America, a country where the rate of firearm ownership is greater than the fucking population and this is WITH the state's added "protection", once thats gone I expect it will increase drastically making it almost impossible for an agressor