• stevehobbes@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Humans have built societies with rules for forever.

    And banish people outside their society.

    I’m not an expert on the theory of all of this, but it seems entirely dubious that anarchy could function in any environment for long.

    • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      A light form was tribalism. If you didn’t go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.

      We now don’t have places to banish people to. That’s why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that’s the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.

      It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren’t we anymore?

      • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        We didn’t then either. The real issue is scale. What worked when the entire population of the human race was 100,000 doesn’t work when it’s 8,500,000,000.

        You’re right that there are no wilds no, no one is getting 40 acres and a mule, and you can just inhabit a new area.

        But let’s not forget that a lot of the stake a claim and defend with lethal force was literally colonialism. So many of those wilds were owned by other people, but the stronger guy with the bigger rock can kill him, take his land, take his wife.

        Hardly utopia.

        • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Exactly the point I apparently failed to make. It never worked. Yet we are holding on to it. Just with the added caveat that the weapons are now money, and the wilds are gone.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Go ahead and remove their states and countries. Most people would explode. Eventually thats the way. But take an honest look around. It wont happen today

      • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        In what way isn’t it? How were the borders of the France different than the Roman Empire or Mesopotamia?

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Literally the free movement of people? Borders used to be “the zone of control of a government” and couldnt really exist as checkpoints for people moving back and forth over the border.

          • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            That feels like a distinction without a difference? The vast vast majority of physical land borders are effectively open everywhere worldwide still today.

            The zone of control of a government just kicks you out if they don’t want you?

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              There is a massive difference if you can practically establish who is allowed into and out of a country

              • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                So is the argument against technology that allows us to know who is who and records of who is a citizen of places?

                Like, they used to record that stuff too… it was just much harder?

                They would collect taxes and keep records?

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  They couldn’t effectively police borders, so they didn’t. Technology and population density influences the way the state works and whether they could do borders as they existed in the 20th century and exist in the 21st century.

                  The argument isn’t against technology, it is saying borders as they are understood here are a relatively recent technology relying on other technologies

                  • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    But that’s the way borders were understood then too… it was just harder to determine who was who?

                    They’d kick you out and burn down your house or kill you for being an invader?