• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1824 hours ago

    It wouldn’t.

    Stateless societies don’t work, that’s why despite thousands of years of recorded history, we don’t have any record of one ever succeeding.

    Even just having a village elder who decides disputes is a form of state. Hell, having parents who decide the rules in a family is a form of state.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      923 hours ago

      States didn’t exist until a few thousand years ago. Hundreds of thousands of years of human history never had states.

      You don’t need a state to function and reducing the concept of state to encapsulate non-state things (eg. Parenting) is a bit silly.

      • lurch (he/him)
        link
        fedilink
        520 hours ago

        That’s true, but in those ages ppl still got speared in the back or ritually sacrificed. So is this more successful than all of todays states in case of murdering and terrorising? I doubt it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          Also, if there are a couple tribes enough distance apart to each be self-sufficient, there is no incentive to even have a state. Government/states only became useful once too many people lived too closely together.

          And it’s not like we can go back to tribal self-sufficiency.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -314 hours ago

        States did exist, just because it was the strongest man in the tribe declaring the rules arbitrarily didn’t make it not a state.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          We co-operated, it was never a case of strongest = leader. That alpha shit is inaccurate.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -212 hours ago

            In wolves it’s fake, in humans it’s quite accurate.

            It still exists today so don’t tell me it was never a case of the strongest = leader. Drug cartels are effectively states, and ruled by extreme violence (even internally)

            Even if your argument were accurate, that would be considered a state. A group of people agreeing on rules together is a state.

            Like I said, with few enough people and it could be considered “not a state” but there isn’t any realistic way to have a stateless society of even tens of thousands of people, let alone the millions and billions of people that exist these days.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              312 hours ago

              No, it is not accurate in humans at all.

              Go learn some biology and human history, you are clearly not informed enough to be having opinions here if you’re at the level of thinking alpha is a thing in people.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                111 hours ago

                I mean, if you want a great example, Genghis Khan killed his half brother at 8 years old in order to “secure his family position” then went on to lose a bunch of battles, then win a bunch of wars and murder his way to the top of an empire.

                If you don’t think that’s an example of strongest = leader, I don’t know what to tell you.

                Modern cartel leaders are very similar in most cases, they’ve schemed, battled, and murdered their way to the top.