Normie

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

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.

Anyone up for dinosaur planet?

i'll play

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@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.

@catchamber

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.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<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.

@catchamber

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).

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@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.

@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.

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.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<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.

@PrinceAlexus

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.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@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.

@catchamber

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).

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

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.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

The real problem with any form of anarchy is that even if you don't want a government, one is going to be forced on you. In a state of anarchy, people will band together into groups, and at some point one of those groups will have more capacity for force than another. It will begin subjugating other groups and set itself up as a government over those people, extracting resources from them in exchange for not killing them and protecting them from any other imperial groups that may wish to do the same. This is what happened in actual history as tribes which had some form of advantage over others set up empires and kingdoms through conquest. With no pre-existing government in place to protect you, nothing will prevent this from happening.

Also, competing force-wielders likewise existed in history, and still do today. They are known as kings, emperors and warlords.

Ecetopia: Rzail: Karnorouri’s Pillar

No sooner had he left green girl in the dust than Ivas happened upon another fair beauty, this one at least twice his size (or so it seemed) and wielding a massive axe like it was a twig! He stopped to watch, jaw hanging dumbly as she cut apart three monsters with no apparent effort. He wasn't sure whether to be scared or turned on, although the voluminous outpourings of gore made the second one tough, and the fact that he wasn't a monster made him decide against the former, so ultimately Ivas just decided to be impressed by her strength. This land had plenty of cute girls after all it seemed, and really surprising ones at that! Maybe this one could even speak his language!

"Hey, lady!" Ivas said, not sure if she was really a lady or not but having nothing better to call her. "Nice going with those, uhh--things! I've been waiting to meet someone else out here!" he continued, running up to her.

Suddenly the boy was acutely aware of the severed hand he was still holding. He threw it away with a jerky motion like it was suddenly red hot.

"Y-yeah, I mean, I haven't met anyone else out here yet. Nope! Not at all, haha! Definitely not any of those weird green people!" he rambled, hoping the hand would just go ignored. "My name's Ivas. Do you know where a guy can get a drink of clean water around here? I'm starting to get kinda thirsty. Say, maybe we can ask those folks?"

Ivas pointed behind him to the orc with the rifle who was slowly hiking in their general direction, then off to the side towards the rambling wagon with the fire gear thingy flag on it. He'd already made two friends, and it looked like he was set to make that four! Already his luck had turned around! As an expert and seasoned adventurer, Ivas knew that this always happened if you just kept trying for long enough!