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.
Greece and Madagascar are both places with actual governments…
That doesn’t help your brain-dead arguments at all. And again, the 150 people mark is due to the very structure of your brain. It cannot handle anything more than 150 relationships.
That’s you, me, and every living human on the planet. 150 is the mean maximum number of social relationships that anyone can have.
To get around this maximum number of relationships and still get things done, we as a species invented organization and governance.
If you try to run a community without taking this physiological limitation into account, your community will fail. Sometimes to bears.
i cited two societies that passed it, but you found some other reason to dismiss them. if that’s not moving the goal posts or setting up a no-true-scotsman then i guess i should get a refund for my degree.
You have fairly thin skin. Although the second was closer to an actual insult than the first. The first was calling your argument stupid. As in, it is, me telling you to do better.
The second was saying that I feel like I’m arguing with someone whose arguments so far are akin to believing in Santa Claus. Closer to an actual insult, but still not making it personal or actually attacking you.
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.
>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.
The response is, go sit at the little table, the adults are talking.
>you cannot have anything like an anarchist paradise because there are too many people. Full stop.
except every time there has been
Name some that had communities of more than 150 people. I’ll wait because you cannot.
why do they need more than 150 people? but if you insist, you can look into northern madagascar or exarcheia
Greece and Madagascar are both places with actual governments…
That doesn’t help your brain-dead arguments at all. And again, the 150 people mark is due to the very structure of your brain. It cannot handle anything more than 150 relationships.
That’s you, me, and every living human on the planet. 150 is the mean maximum number of social relationships that anyone can have.
To get around this maximum number of relationships and still get things done, we as a species invented organization and governance.
If you try to run a community without taking this physiological limitation into account, your community will fail. Sometimes to bears.
ignoring evidence against your position indicates a lack of intellectual honesty. are you moving the goalposts toward your very own no-true-scotsman?
I’ve been very upfront about the 150 number. You’ve just been too caught up in your make believe world of nonsense to notice.
i cited two societies that passed it, but you found some other reason to dismiss them. if that’s not moving the goal posts or setting up a no-true-scotsman then i guess i should get a refund for my degree.
Two that you claim rule by consensus, but two places that, in fact, do not.
Both places have actual national governments and hold actual elections.
i’ll accept your apologies for insulting me.
And I’ll not do that.
Although I do sort of feel like I’m arguing with a child obsessed with Santa Claus while I’m pointing out that the North Pole is fucking melting.
more insults
You have fairly thin skin. Although the second was closer to an actual insult than the first. The first was calling your argument stupid. As in, it is, me telling you to do better.
The second was saying that I feel like I’m arguing with someone whose arguments so far are akin to believing in Santa Claus. Closer to an actual insult, but still not making it personal or actually attacking you.