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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
States did exist, just because it was the strongest man in the tribe declaring the rules arbitrarily didn’t make it not a state.
We co-operated, it was never a case of strongest = leader. That alpha shit is inaccurate.
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.
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.
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.