• chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Small groups. Not large nations.

      That’s the key difference. A tiny group of people can reach consensus, a large group literally cannot. Not when electing a representative, or even setting policy through direct voting.

            • chaogomu@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The origins of the word libertarian were actually closest to being anarchist. But that shit doesn’t work.

              The whole, no government just neighbors who talk to each other sounds great on paper, but fails the second the community has more than about 150 people.

              There’s a reason why Amish and Mennonite communities formally split at 150 people. Because our brains cannot handle it.

              • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                >The origins of the word libertarian were actually closest to being anarchist.

                “libertarian socialists”, yea. it’s great that you mentioned the amish but you didn’t finish explaining why they are relevant: anabaptists are the majority of christian anarchists.

                • chaogomu@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Again, you cannot have anything like an anarchist paradise because there are too many people. Full stop.

                  Tiny communities who separate themselves away from everyday society can sort of do it, but they either have to go to extreme lengths to not integrate or they are completely dependent on the larger society. Just like house cats, who wouldn’t know what a mouse is if one crawled across their nose.

                  All because of Dunbar’s number and our brains not being able to maintain anything like a community larger than about 150 people. And that’s with roughly 40% of a given person’s social energy actively devoted to maintaining those 150 relationships.

                  Saying that you’ll only accept that sort of “governance” is exactly like saying that you’ll only accept Bigfoot as president. The response to both are the exact same.

                  • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    >you cannot have anything like an anarchist paradise because there are too many people. Full stop.

                    except every time there has been

                  • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    >Saying that you’ll only accept that sort of “governance” is exactly like saying that you’ll only accept Bigfoot as president.

                    no. i wouldn’t accept bigfoot as president. we should destroy the office of the presidency.