Here’s his ultimatum reply during the conversation:
lol whoops forgot I was supposed to give a long detailed example…Instead, I will appeal to historical precedent. Look at human history. I’m talking about before the 1700s, Before the Crusades, before the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Mesopotamia, back all the way when humans were tribal bands composed mostly of families. The family was essentially the first form of government. After all, the mother or father could abandon their mate and offspring and become individualist and do their own thing. However, our species has evolved to be a social creature. We have realized that the best thing for us is to be in groups.
And so families became the first form of government, usually with the male as the leader, since he was larger and more able to protect the mother and children. The male was the first head of state then. Over time, families grew larger and maybe would merge with other families for mutual benefits. Again, larger numbers was a great way to bring about defense, but also was a great way to provide more food, to share ideas, to create social bonds, etc. And at the head of these groups of families? Most likely the strongest/most mature male leader. Unwritten rules began to be passed along. Perhaps you don’t sleep with another persons mate, or take their food or tools, you don’t come into their home without permission. And the person to enforce these rules? Usually that strongest leader.
Fast forward to about 7-10kya back, and you see the neolithic revolution take place. Humans became sedentary. They planted crops. They built up permanent or mostly permanent settlements. Each settlement was governed by a chief/king/leader/Council/Etc. There was government in place. And as earlier it served two purposes: protection of those people within the group and to create societal order. This was to prevent the chaos of human nature.
Imagine this scenario with no sort of order, where it is up to each person to look out for his or her own. I come home to my little shack to find my grain missing. I suspect it is my neighbor. After all, he seems to be a bit more fat than I am. He obviously took it. Since there is no governing authority to decide if something is legitimate or not, I can obviously take matters into my own hands. I go and accuse the man of taking my grain. He denies it. But I know he did it. A scuffle breaks out, and in the end the other man is dead. But after I return to my home, I find a nest of rats outside feeding on something. What is it? It is my grain. I just killed a man over grain that was eaten by rats. Since there were no courts, police, juries, etc, there was no way for the man to be found innocent, and thus I had to take matters into my own hands. We need social structure. We need as much order as possible.
I am not saying anarchy is nothing but chaos like you see in the movies. I am saying that human nature left unrestrained will cause chaos. If we weren’t depraved people, I would fully support the lack of governance. There would be no need for it.
WE have seen that from the time of the first man start walking and crafting tools, there has been murder, war, theft, jealousy, and chaos.
Let’s fast forward to know. Let’s say we wiped away 95% of the US government’s influence over society. Do you honestly believe we will transition nicely into some idealistic paradise where everyone respects each other? If so, I have a ocean front property to sell to you, over in North Dakota. There will be typical human actions. Murder, theft, chaos. And in the chaos, people will band together for protection and to offer stability in small communities, and voila! You have the same thing as before: government!
I would love to do an experiment with you, where we take 100 people out into the forest some place and tell them to just live. And over time we come back and see how the are doing. They will start in anarchy, with no one ruling over another, every person left to do for themselves what is best. They will end in some sort of formal societal structure, also known as government, or maybe even two or three smaller societies. Either way, they will naturally form to a model of government. Having authority and stability is as much nature to us as is pride and greed.
Now we can look at one last example of anarchy, and I am not even going to mention Somalia because I believe that isn’t truly an anarchy, even though many silly liberals will point to it as being one. Instead, I will refer you to the international community. I had a I.R. professor once who claimed that International Relations is anarchy. Of course, in the last 60 years or so we have tried to regulate it with international organizations such as the UN or strategic alliances, such as NATO. However, if you want a clear picture of anarchy, you need not look further than IR. No nation has a central authority over it, therefore it does what is sees fit to be best for itself. I believe that would be the most basic definition of Anarchy, no?
So we have every nation doing what it sees is best for itself. You have some like Switzerland who fell like they just need to leave everyone alone, and it has worked well for them. Then you have others like the US, UK, France, and historically nations like Germany, HRE, Roman Empire, and so forth, who believe what is best for them is to acquire resources and lands from other people groups. This of course leads to conflict. Then you have those nations which believe it is their best interest to form a coalition with other nations, for mutual defense against the types of aggression practiced by the aforementioned. It is like how human individuals and family groups did when they first came around, no? Now, look at history when there has been a case of an empire dominating over IR. Say, Rome, for example. What happened when Rome fell? According to you, everything should have been better for the world. No one ruling over another, people to live as freely as they want. Instead, you have Germanic and Gallic tribes all vying to fill that power, up until you have the reign of Charlemagne. Various places in the world have seen this same thing happen over and over again. There is a vacuum of power, groups fight for that power, one or two groups become the dominant power, those groups decline and the cycle begins again.
If we have witnessed all of this throughout history, and continue to see it today, then doesn’t it make sense to accept the reality that humans are not ready, nor have been ready in the last 50k+ years, nor will be ready in any foreseeable future, to embrace and live out anarchy? Shouldn’t we then accept that we need to live with some sort of central authority? Shouldn’t we also realize that this authority isn’t automatically the best, and needs work? These are the realizations that I have come to.
