@catchamber And how does that mean we'd have no government?

.

@POOHEAD189 If everyone has their own self sufficient living space that's independent from everyone else's, why would they even need a government?

We have our own self sufficient living spaces right now. I can go into the kitchen and use the microwave, and I have a bathroom with a fully functioning shower. Also a bed! There's a huge ass bookshelf too, and another bookshelf downstairs with my other library.

.

@POOHEAD189 No no, that's not self sufficiency, because your living space isn't capable of manufacturing all of the replacements to its own components, is it?

Even if it did, I'd still be living in a society that is in need of some sort of leadership or governing body. Going into the sea changes none of that.

.

@POOHEAD189 Don't be so skeptical, if history teaches us anything its that times of government weakness, absence and collapse are always utopias of peace and plenty!

@POOHEAD189 Nah, I don't see why leadership is necessary. If people can sustain and defend themselves, why do they need leaders?

You're arguing against the human condition, my friend. Let's say we have as much resources as we could ever want right in a small itty bitty living space box. There is still the desire for other things. Land (or Sea, I suppose), and emotional/physical desires. What is to stop floating house A from boarding with fire and steel floating house B to take their beautiful daughter by force, in order to then give her to floating house C for favors in the upcoming transatlantic conflict!?

...I think I just made a premise.

.

Why do they need leaders?

Why is a government necessary?

Not saying either, or. But I will point out (since I'm still playing devil's advocate) that these are not synonymous words. People often do need and crave leadership and authority figures or something that guides their life. Finding it through religion, parental figures and in sadder cases celebrities. Some lead, some follow. As they say. Without a government, people would definitively still create groups and have people leading and making decisions in those groups. But that itself, isn't a government.

.

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>
You're assuming the living space is itty bitty. Also, you're ignoring the whole "self defense" aspect. If the living space is sizable, and it's capable of defending its inhabitants, why is a government necessary?

The itty bitty was to this self sustaining contraption that vomits food and water in this hypothetical. Self defense? People have that now and it doesn't stop too much. Unless you want to go into the gun debate again.

Look, from all I have read about history or philosophy, human beings need a leading body. Not just to give them the food or water they need, but to help maintain order. Wars over resources are not the only wars. Wars over land are not the only wars. Riots aren't just about food, water, or land. Yes those are huge components and if we had unlimited of all of them a lot of conflict would stop, but not all conflict. That's just unrealistic, from everything I have read or seen.

.

@catchamber You can't join a group and be fruitful if you don't contribute though right? There will be a leader(s) in every group of individuals. Humans aren't all the same. Some are bound to be smarter, more athletic and have more leadership qualities. A group can't form without the conscious effort to do so and their can't be order without a solid direction. If you don't follow the group, you will eventually not be apart of that group.

Also the idea of not following or learning from history because there's not enough of it recorded is erroneous in the current age of social media where nearly everything can be easily found if you know where to look. There's plenty of recorded history, it also makes less sense to look that far back when technology has only made more things possible and expanded how the society interacts with one another. Humans have adapted. If we want to proof something could work, that's an older concept like anarchy or non-government societies functioning and thriving as well as Capitalistic economies. We'd likely already have examples of it...

Edit: Also...

Beyond all of this, let's consider a scenario where everyone's survival needs are taken care of via automated systems. What exactly would a bunch of ocean dwellers need to riot about, how would they riot, and why?

Ignoring that this would be impossible, because there's no such thing as a free lunch. But humoring the idea of limitless resources without cost. You also horribly misunderstand humans if you think that there wouldn't be arguments, fights or turmoil. Just because people are afforded what they want. What if one of those boat dwellers, didn't like the black colored boats to be near their sea and tell them to go elsewhere? What if one had a hot woman that was happily married? But it wasn't fair that they couldn't have their turns with her. What if someone just wanted to see the look of their face when they cut a hole into another ocean dwellers neck? And the other fellow ocean dwellers understandably didn't want that guy around. Greed exists as a sin for a reason. The slippery slope fallacy when it comes to social issues is often fleeting, because people do constantly want more. I mean in this theoretical scenario they'd already be self deluded into thinking they could have anything they wanted. Why wouldn't they protest the sea? Because they wanted it to no longer be wet...they should have a device that makes all water not wet! Why doesn't the automated system defy logic and reason? Why can't it make me a real woman or a dragon? (You get my point.)

Meh, I'm not limiting self defense to guns.

which limits both of our perspectives regarding the variety of functional social systems that could've existed since the Neolithic Revolution.

Limiting defense to sticks.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/north-kora-botches-missile-launch/

If I was an eviler man, I'd find the irony hilarious. (Hopefully no one innocent was killed by their dickless fearless leader.)

@Normie Not that I think anarchy is actually a viable political strategy for a productive society, it also doesn't really bring into account the great advancing of our society. I highly doubt it would be as simple and barbaric as those times, even considering the stereotype of what anarchy looks like. I disagree that it would just merely lead to the exact same form of government necessarily, or even have a governmental structure.

Though I suppose it depends on exactly where it's taking place, but the government also once used be a free public service that wasn't a paid job and didn't tax or have very much authority over anyone else. Also, I'd honestly feel safer in a world that started from anarchy, than one with strict governmental control like a dictatorship.

Also, despite not being my particular brand of politics. I'll play the devil's advocate and post someone's detailed explanation on why anarchy "would" work. (Though I disagree, it's not any less convincing than socialism.)

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter…

Oh I don't think anarchy would get you the same form of government after the power vacuum is filled, I'm saying it would get you a much worse one (again, because this is what happened in history--the vast majority of states started off as total autocracies and have taken millenia to develop forward to where they are now, and in many parts of the world, they're still unaccountable autocracies today). You are not going to be able to go from anarchy straight to a stable liberal democracy, those norms and institutions take generations to build up and become embedded into society.

Governments did used to be much smaller and if someone is saying they have grown too large, I actually totally agree. But "we need smaller government" is a totally different viewpoint than "we need no government." Governments remain necessary for purposes of national defense, enforcement of property rights, and other basic functions that ensure a free society. Anyone who thinks they aren't simply isn't properly conceptualizing what a government is. Whatever agent you put in place to fulfill those functions will end up being your government, whether you choose to call it one or not.

Oh I don't think anarchy would get you the same form of government after the power vacuum is filled, I'm saying it would get you a much worse one (again, because this is what happened in history--the vast majority of states started off as total autocracies and have taken millenia to develop forward to where they are now, and in many parts of the world, they're still unaccountable autocracies today). You are not going to be able to go from anarchy straight to a stable liberal democracy, those norms and institutions take generations to build up and become embedded into society.

Governments did used to be much smaller and if someone is saying they have grown too large, I actually totally agree. But "we need smaller government" is a totally different viewpoint than "we need no government." Governments remain necessary for purposes of national defense, enforcement of property rights, and other basic functions that ensure a free society. Anyone who thinks they aren't simply isn't properly conceptualizing what a government is. Whatever agent you put in place to fulfill those functions will end up being your government, whether you choose to call it one or not.

Basically agree with that 100%. (although I wouldn't immediately say anarchic practices like revolution or overthrowing a corrupt government or regime, is inherently going to lead to worse results than you started. Though I'm aware that's has been the case many times before.) But especially how that particular article portrays his arguments, it's almost parallel to socialism arguments.

mises.org/library/trouble-socialist-a… I'd probably use this to point out the problems with the concept of socialist anarchy.