• @unfreeradical
    link
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why don’t you enlighten me on how the above scenario would work in your dream of a stateless society.

    Stateless society is not a dream, but rather an objective, or an ideal toward which to struggle.

    If you want to understand how it might be structured, then I encourage you to investigate and to discover.

    At the moment, however, you are engaged in shifting of the burden of proof.

    You have also entered into several instances of a false dichotomy, including through your insinuation that all societies are either disordered, or must be kept orderly by a coercive authority.

    I feel you are more likely to benefit from explanation of certain ideas if you are not encumbered by such kinds of fallacious reasoning.

    • chaogomu
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      So you have no clue how a stateless society would actually function. Thank you for clearing that up.

      • @unfreeradical
        link
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There is not only a single way a stateless society may function, just as there is not only a single way a state may function.

        A member of a hunter-gatherer group might lack knowledge of states, but they still occur, in all their variations.

        The topic of stateless society is obviously large, just like the topic of states, or any other topic in politics. It is not suitable to be expounded in a discussion thread.

        Again, if you genuinely are interested, then I encourage you to seek resources from which you might gain meaningful understanding.

        Meanwhile, please stop whining that actual possibilities are somehow limited by your own personal frame of experience, knowledge, or imagination.

        • chaogomu
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          The fact that you’re unable to link to any of these “resources” says that you don’t know them.

          The only stateless societies you can point to seem to have less than 150 people (hunter-gatherers) Because that’s all that the human brain can support. Anything more requires bureaucracy. And that is the beginnings of government.

          • @unfreeradical
            link
            11 year ago

            The fact that you’re unable to link to any of these “resources” says that you don’t know them.

            Have you made any attempts to learn about the subject yet, or are you still just arguing and whining?

            • chaogomu
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              You’re the one who can’t back up your position.

              All my research says that it’s biologically not possible to have a stateless society of more than 150 people. You’ve given me literally nothing to refute this.

              You’ve answered none of my questions about infrastructure or handling inter-community disputes, or really anything at all.

              All you’ve put forward is that you think that the entire concept of representative democracy is flawed for reasons.

              Reasons that rely on a very specific verbiage that you never bothered to explain, because you likely cannot.

              At this point, I can conclude that you have no clue at all about anything. The only links you’ve provided have been to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies that you seem to be engaging in.

              • @unfreeradical
                link
                11 year ago

                All my research says that it’s biologically not possible to have a stateless society of more than 150 people. You’ve given me literally nothing to refute this.

                Perhaps one useful starting point for you would be learning about tribal societies.

                Tribes are non-state sociopolitical structures that unify bands or villages. Bands and villages are local groups that typically have less than a few hundred members.

                • chaogomu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Again, tribes almost always consist of less than 150 individuals.

                  You don’t seem to understand this one simple fact. I can point to about a dozen examples of small communities that are effectively stateless. They all contain less than 150 people, because that’s the number of relationships that a human brain can maintain before it breaks down.

                  And a news flash for you, most cities and towns have more than 150 people.

                  • @unfreeradical
                    link
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Again, tribes almost always consist of less than 150 individuals.

                    No. As I explained, the local groups that are limited in size to several hundred individuals are called bands or villages. Tribes are structures that unify bands or villages.

                    You are not engaging the discussion or refining your understanding.

                    You consistently have exhibited sloppy reasoning and have adhered to inaccurate terminology.

                    I suggest stepping away for a few days.

                    Then, when your head is clear, you might read about tribal structures. Once you have opened to a broadened understanding of the structure for various past and extant stateless societies, if you are still interested in the subject, then you might begin to review some of the materials in libcom.org and The Anarchist Library. Since literature on the subject reaches back about two hundred years, I doubt you will struggle due to a poverty of sources.

                    If you later have doubts about material you have read, then you might present them on discussion boards. I think your asking sincere and informed questions, after some background reading, would be more productive than the present course.

                    Good luck.