I never said that, either. I would say smaller, more specialized units like classrooms, search parties, and militaries benefit from adhering to an authority. It’s just general society that cannot have a deemed authority.
Let me illustrate the difference via an example: There is a math class. The class obeys the teacher. Why? Because the teacher is known, in some reliable way, to have the knowledge necessary to teach a class on the subject. They derive their authority from that. The students listen to them because they wanted to learn from them.
So if a math teacher can have authority, derived from possessing the most knowledge about the subject at hand, how does, say, an executive or a legislator or a judge derive their authority? By being the most knowledgeable about… Everything? Just, fucking everything? It should stand to reason, because that’s what they want to have authority over! But it doesn’t, officials are NOT experts on literally everything. That’s the difference.
So in your vision of anarchy there are leaders and hierarchies. There is just no central power that orchestrates them all. Ok.
Now. What is stopping the leader of the military from saying: “you know what? We’ve got all the weapons, why don’t we subjugate our own population and live rich lives?”. Resulting in a central authority, which would end the anarchy.
In most other political systems there is a central authority with a monopoly of violence that can enforce rules via violence.
If your political system only works if everyone acts in the interests of society over their own, then it’s not a political system. It’s a failure. Because there are plenty of selfish people, and you can’t change that.
In a democracy, governments derive their power from the legitimacy that the support of their voters give them. If someone in government decides to “not be nice about it”, then most likely the rest of the government would stop it. Remember, the government is made up of a LOT of people. If an entire political party goes nuts, then the opposition would get votes and reclaim the monopoly of violence.
Well. You could’ve said that if you wanted to say that.
Now it’s not 5 dudes. Your land is valuable and the neighbouring state wants to invade you. How do you stop it?
We… Fight a war?
With what army? How do maintain a military without a hierarchy. Without central commands that everyone must follow
I never said that, either. I would say smaller, more specialized units like classrooms, search parties, and militaries benefit from adhering to an authority. It’s just general society that cannot have a deemed authority.
Let me illustrate the difference via an example: There is a math class. The class obeys the teacher. Why? Because the teacher is known, in some reliable way, to have the knowledge necessary to teach a class on the subject. They derive their authority from that. The students listen to them because they wanted to learn from them.
So if a math teacher can have authority, derived from possessing the most knowledge about the subject at hand, how does, say, an executive or a legislator or a judge derive their authority? By being the most knowledgeable about… Everything? Just, fucking everything? It should stand to reason, because that’s what they want to have authority over! But it doesn’t, officials are NOT experts on literally everything. That’s the difference.
So in your vision of anarchy there are leaders and hierarchies. There is just no central power that orchestrates them all. Ok.
Now. What is stopping the leader of the military from saying: “you know what? We’ve got all the weapons, why don’t we subjugate our own population and live rich lives?”. Resulting in a central authority, which would end the anarchy.
As it turns out rule by the people demands that the people are actually smart and kind to work well. You know, like rule by any other force.
How are those demands going to be enforced?
In most other political systems there is a central authority with a monopoly of violence that can enforce rules via violence.
If your political system only works if everyone acts in the interests of society over their own, then it’s not a political system. It’s a failure. Because there are plenty of selfish people, and you can’t change that.
If your political system relies on people with a monopoly on violence just deciding to be nice about it, what does that mean?
Then that means it’s shit.
In a democracy, governments derive their power from the legitimacy that the support of their voters give them. If someone in government decides to “not be nice about it”, then most likely the rest of the government would stop it. Remember, the government is made up of a LOT of people. If an entire political party goes nuts, then the opposition would get votes and reclaim the monopoly of violence.