.

Yes they will. Again, history proves this. Maybe you will have 1% of 1% who are weird and will live completely alone, or with only their immediate family, in some kind of remote and self-sufficient existence somewhere. The vast, overwhelming majority of people form into tribes, because you are safer and have access to more resources with dozens of other people watching your back than if you try to go it alone. Over time, some of these groups become more powerful than others, and when the opportunity presents itself, they take through force. The "government" that is formed does not necessarily start out as a classical social contract, in fact historically speaking, this type of voluntary agreement was exceedingly rare. Nearly all states that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution were autocracies put into place by whatever faction had the greatest capacity for force within a given region, specifically for the benefit of that faction. Their subjects had no say in the matter and if they protested they were punished or simply killed.

Yes they will. Again, history proves this. Maybe you will have 1% of 1% who are weird and will live completely alone, or with only their immediate family, in some kind of remote and self-sufficient existence somewhere. The vast, overwhelming majority of people form into tribes, because you are safer and have access to more resources with dozens of other people watching your back than if you try to go it alone. Over time, some of these groups become more powerful than others, and when the opportunity presents itself, they take through force. The "government" that is formed does not necessarily start out as a classical social contract, in fact historically speaking, this type of voluntary agreement was exceedingly rare. Nearly all states that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution were autocracies put into place by whatever faction had the greatest capacity for force within a given region, specifically for the benefit of that faction. Their subjects had no say in the matter and if they protested they were punished or simply killed.

From a purely genetic point of view.

A isolated group who remain so inbreeding becomes a issue. They weaken, they become less effective as time passes.

A wider gene pool is stronger. They will outlast the isolationist who die and weaken as they inbreeding and genetic issues are passed down again and again.

This only kicks inn over long period but in the end. The tribes, the large group always wins.

.

@Normie History doesn't "prove" anything, because I'm talking about scenarios that aren't similar to virtually anything that's existed in recorded history. Also, the social contract was used back then, even in autocracies, because one can surrender their right to autonomy so their right to exist won't be violated by the autocrats.

Well yes, if we go outside reality and start setting up fictional parameters, anything is possible. Likewise, if you define "give me everything I want or I'll kill you" as a social contract, then yes, all governments are based on a "social contract" of one kind or another, though this does not fit the typical definition of a contract (in which the agreement of both parties is voluntary i.e. free of overt coercion).

<Snipped quote by Normie>

From a purely genetic point of view.

A isolated group who remain so inbreeding becomes a issue. They weaken, they become less effective as time passes.

A wider gene pool is stronger. They will outlast the isolationist who die and weaken as they inbreeding and genetic issues are passed down again and again.

This only kicks inn over long period but in the end. The tribes, the large group always wins.

Well it doesn't take much imagination to figure out what happens when our lone survivalist is discovered by a tribe of dozens or more. If he's lucky, they will take him in or simply leave him alone, but it's also entirely possible that they will take all his stuff and leave, or just kill him outright. And there's not going to be anything he can do about it because he's outnumbered by such a huge factor. No need to wait for inbreeding to kick in, it's always the better choice to just go ahead and join a group if you can.

.

@Normie More like outside of historical parameters, rather than outside of reality. You were initially talking about abstract scenarios that didn't account for all the ways that societies can develop, so I responded in turn. A social contract can be agreed to by the potential subjects of autocrats, so their rights to exist can be protected against violations performed by other autocrats.

Yeah that's why monarchs came up with the idea of the divine right of kings, because they already had a clear social contract that everyone in the kingdom was allowed to look at and given a chance to opt out of before they took the throne. I don't remember being given that opportunity before being born into the modern US, much less some medieval fiefdom.

Historical parameters and reality are synonymous until we discover a way to travel between dimensions Infinite Crisis style. Don't get me wrong, if we crossed over to Earth-2 to discover that somehow anarchy was the preeminent political philosophy and everyone found the idea of a government absurd, that would be really cool.

If a lone survivalist is discovered by a tribe of dozens or more, they're bad at hiding. They could be better off abstaining from joining a group if they can live without others' assistance, especially if the group's dynamics and members would produce suboptimal results compared to them living on their own.

I mean, if you actually prefer to live alone with no human contact, you do you I guess. Again, there are probably a few outliers weird enough to do such a thing, but they are very, very few, and they'd be removed from the gene pool anyways if they don't have a family. 99.99% of the species lives as part of a larger body and always have.

.

<Snipped quote by Normie>
It's not even about alternate Earths, but what historical records can reveal to us. As far as I know, writing as we know it didn't form until around the 4th millennium BCE, while the Neolithic Revolution started around 10,000 BCE. This means that we only have access to distinct texts for only about 50% of human civilization's existence, and the amount of recoverable texts exponentially declines as we go as far back as possible. With such long and wide gaps, anarchist societies flourishing across much of the world during the first half of human civilization's history is well within the realm of possibility.

Well it depends on what you define as anarchy I suppose. If you include small tribes of only a few hundred or possibly even less than a hundred being the largest association in which people live (as opposed to modern states encompassing tens or hundreds of millions), then sure, most of human existence has been total anarchy. Even these small tribes may have a hierarchy of authority however. And it's not very useful as an argument for anarchy in the modern day anyways, since this form of existence began to steadily decline and give way to larger kingdoms and such as soon as humanity made enough military advancements to start conquering and exploiting in an organized fashion. To make it viable again you'd need to return us to the stone age somehow.

I don't mind people, but I'd rather not need them. Also, if IVF + IVG + gene/gamete storage becomes ubiquitous, asocial humans with the means to diversify their descendants' genetics can easily exist alongside social humans that are apparently hyperdependent on their civilizations. If they aren't wiped out and have their genes systematically purged and/or banned from being used, they wouldn't be removed from the gene pool.

Plus the Internet makes the hermit lifestyle much more viable, in terms of being physically isolated at least, since you can get your social interaction from your screens. For the time being a government is still necessary to do this within, however, or at least highly preferable. For most if not all people born into first world countries, it would be more trouble to set up some kind of independent self-sustaining compound than to just pay your taxes and get on with things. And you still can't be assured of your safety from the nearest large state (i.e. those ranchers who thought they were going to declare themselves "sovereign citizens" on U.S. land).

<Snipped quote by catchamber>

Yeah that's why monarchs came up with the idea of the divine right of kings, because they already had a clear social contract that everyone in the kingdom was allowed to look at and given a chance to opt out of before they took the throne. I don't remember being given that opportunity before being born into the modern US, much less some medieval fiefdom.

Well it was mostly to make sure they had power to challenge the church, referring to the 'divine' rights of Kings.

It's not even about alternate Earths, but what historical records can reveal to us. As far as I know, writing as we know it didn't form until around the 4th millennium BCE, while the Neolithic Revolution started around 10,000 BCE. This means that we only have access to distinct texts for only about 50% of human civilization's existence, and the amount of recoverable texts exponentially declines as we go as far back as possible. With such long and wide gaps, anarchist societies flourishing across much of the world during the first half of human civilization's history is well within the realm of possibility.

And yeah, I get having a distaste for not being able to exit your local social contract on a whim. However, if humanity properly colonizes the Earth's oceans and Sol system in the near future, the ability to opt out and do your own thing away from everyone else may very well become reasonable for countless people.

6'000 BC is when the first writing occurred from what I know, but that's a small matter. And I am not entirely sure what the discussion here is, but I think you are talking about anarchy vs government, and whether or not a true anarchy is possible? I think we've already seen what happens when people migrate into the unknown, such as the Viking expeditions in the 10th century to Iceland and North America. They didn't exactly become an anarchist state. Humans are social animals and require some sort of order. Even the leader of a tribe having absolute power, or a pure athenian style democracy, is a government. Pure anarchy isn't really possible from what I know.

Plus the Internet makes the hermit lifestyle much more viable

Truly, this is the age of introverts. Feels good :)

.

Because so many people successfully live alone in international waters and that is a pertinent, logical, repeatable and verifiable example.



This is a real thing :))))

inb4 2d people only stick to their own kind, then take over the 3d universe

I welcome my 2D overlords. Let them purge the world of the ugly, Godless, heathen 3D human filth.

<Snipped quote by KaijuBaragon>

I know quite a few people I would like to push off if I was a cat.

I would gladly get into the Christmas decorating tradition if that was the case.

@POOHEAD189 You're referring to proto-writing, but yeah, it's a small matter.

Pure anarchy is possible if individuals are completely self-sufficient. Can most people achieve that today? Probably not, because they're told that pure anarchy is impossible, and that they need to become overspecialized and hyperdependent proles that must service systems that falsely claim to serve their interests. They're also systematically prevented from becoming completely self-sufficient, and many end up capitulating because complete self-sufficiency is routinely described as being implausible for anyone that doesn't have insane amounts of disposable currency.

My friend, there is always going to be someone who owns the guns, or controls the trade, or distributes the supplies, or has the money, which means there is always going to be a hierarchy. No matter where you go, or what you do.

@Normie "With enough resources, people can practically stop interacting with governments. There's plenty of international waters for them to live in, but most folks obviously don't have the means or inclinations to live that way." ~Me, on Page 226

"If you're self sufficient, live in international waters, don't have an income, and don't engage in any transactions with other parties, you most likely won't need to interact with governments. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to discuss it." ~Me, also on Page 226

@POOHEAD189 You're referring to proto-writing, but yeah, it's a small matter.

Pure anarchy is possible if individuals are completely self-sufficient. Can most people achieve that today? Probably not, because they're told that pure anarchy is impossible, and that they need to become overspecialized and hyperdependent proles that must service systems that falsely claim to serve their interests. They're also systematically prevented from becoming completely self-sufficient, and many end up capitulating because complete self-sufficiency is routinely described as being implausible for anyone that doesn't have insane amounts of disposable currency.

Hey I'd love to live on my own personal cruise ship. It would be pretty cool if some billionaire decided to do this to set some sort of example. But no for most people it isn't plausible. More importantly, if it became plausible and the waters were suddenly crowded with millions of sovereign citizens, those previously non-governed areas would probably develop their own governing institutions in the same way as the landlubbers did.

.

The surface area isn't really the issue. There is plenty enough land area for people to live far apart from each other as well, if they wanted to (at least over here in the States, I'll grant that India might still be pretty crowded, depending on how we define "far apart"). Many people don't want to, since there are a variety of legitimate reasons to engage in human contact.

.

@catchamberThat doesn't change the fact that without precedent, such a stupid idea is dismissable.