Well, it's good to have dreams. Think how people living in the middle-ages could have discussed the possibility of a democratic society. It would be really interesting to see such a discussion- probably similar to this.

The idea that 2>1 makes a political system impossible is ludicrous. Things like communication technology and democratization of production (such as the rise of home-based 3 printing or even more novel technologies of production) will make new things possible.

Just like the musket and the printing press. Prior to some inventions, certain mechanisms were impossible.

I hate arguments like "it is human nature that A". Well, we should have never gotten out of the caves then. If this was true then the people ruling society now should be muscular brutes, capable of taking out their adversaries with a club swing to the head. The way society works has obviously changed somewhat.

Perhaps it is hard to show a working society based on anarchist principles. But it is equally hard to show a matrilineal society. Not that it's not a viable model with various far reaching benefits (and disadvantages) - it's just not around at he moment.

It's like arguing that the "democracy" we have now is impossible, because, well take a look around 15th century world politics. It would seem like a crazy idea. But we are living something that was a crazy idea 500 years ago. Even 300 years ago. So, what does that prove?

The rise of technology makes new things possible to be sure. However, each individual has one life. To most people, preservation of that life is paramount over any actual or theoretical government. This is why religions which have an idea about the afterlife are "stickier" in the consciousness.

And who the hell cares about production or money when it comes down to it? Anarchy can't solve the national self-defense problem. Ergo, it is constantly going to be in a state of existential crisis, and human beings can't tolerate that in the main.

Democracy wasn't such a crazy idea. It was tried and worked in ancient Greece and Rome...for a time.

So, those are two examples which you give. Provided that Rome can be considered democratic at all. Democracy in Greece existed in a single city state - you could argue it is only possible on a small scale, however technology has changed that. I would say that democracy as it is, was a crazy idea back then. We look back to ancient Greece - but really, it was a single case among hundreds of counter-examples, if it may be compared to modern democracy at all.

Who says that anarchist society foregoes preservation of life. Look back to Spain in 1936 - people were not lambs going to slaughter. People think that anarchy is complete disorder without capacity for any organized effort. Do you think it impossible to have syndicated communities contributing to a common defense-force? But a "defense force of citizens" within the borders of the community.

You make it seem like the one thing that lets people sleep at night is the fact that the US or some other power has a military capacity to stop aggression. The fact is, that for most people any sort of war (victorious or otherwise) has the prospect of completely destroying their lives. Whether the aggression is curbed is irrelevant.

The thing that has brought most peace to humanity has been the expansion of communication and common identity. Creation of nations reduced peoples fear of their neighboring town coming at night to murder them, or neighboring kingdom etc etc. It wasn't armies - it was a sense of common purpose.

Going back to this idea that anarchy-can't solve national self-defense. Why do you think it can't? Why do you think that a self-organizing militia system can not provide adequate protection. Perhaps it can even reduce chances of conflict by not over-investing in an industry which needs wars, to potentially provide a defensive framework.

Consider this. A syndicate of communities contributing to a common missile defense system. A citizen military where everyone does say 2 weeks of military service/training in a year. To be defensible means for the potential invasion to be more costly to the adversary than it would be worth to him. This doesn't mean having a military capable of expanding an empire per se. It is clearest with the example of Rome and how its military structure was reformed.

"Do you think it impossible to have syndicated communities contributing to a common defense-force?"

"You make it seem like the one thing that lets people sleep at night is the fact that the US or some other power has a military capacity to stop aggression."

"Going back to this idea that anarchy-can't solve national self-defense. Why do you think it can't? Why do you think that a self-organizing militia system can not provide adequate protection?"

Yes, syndicated defense not possible in the modern world in a modern state. Superpowers have nuclear weapons and can obliterate any enemy they want to. Would an anarchist society be large enough to support such weapons? Who would have their "finger on the button" in an anarchist society?

What allows people to sleep at night is their county's ability--or their very big friend's ability--to *wage* aggression, not *stop* it. The reason people do not behave violently or criminally is because they fear the consequences of getting caught. In warfare, this is typically death.

A missile defense system is an interesting idea, but as the saying goes, "The best defense is a good offense." If your opponents have nothing to fear from you--knowing that you will never try to kill them--they can attack all they want with little risk or chance of repercussions.

As for your "citizen military": Who is compelling the citizens to do their duty? Do you really think that the entirety of humanity can be trusted to live up to lofty ideals? They cannot. Many will strive to do so, but there are always a few who will do the wrong thing.

Nuclear weapons are not relevant to anything very much except as overcompensation for insecurity.

You are a fool if you believe that.

Do you really think the only reason why people don't commit crime is fear of punishment? It certainly isn't why I'm not out rioting in the street or mugging people - I have other things to do, usually, and find it unnecessary.

You don't need a huge army to stay safe. Perhaps it's an example which is a dangerous one: but look at Switzerland. Not in WW2 and after, but historically. It just wasn't worth fighting over. It really wasn't worth battling in the mountains for a scrap of land where much better land was around.

The only point where you need to do violence is when you are becoming an imperial power. People don't sleep better because America has troops it can send, are you kidding me? It really doesn't matter for the ordinary joe in a war zone.

Who would hold the red button. Well, who holds the button now? Someone on duty who in case of a missile attack has seconds to decide if they should activate, counterstrike or what. Do you think it's in the hands of the presidents?

Having a more or less subsistence economy with some surplus, but being self-sustainable and providing a useful export service rather than resource is a good model. And maybe have nuclear weapons, just in case - it could make "conquering" you impractical. Particularly if you show no imperial ambition.

Do the wrong thing like what? Honestly, if you were to spend 2 weeks a year in a citizen militia where you are not mistreated and everyone is on equal terms outside of responsibilities, and you knew that you won't be sent to a senseless foreign war. Do you think people would desert? The history of desertion is really mostly regarding foreign conflicts and causes that people did not stand for, like war of aggression. Or being sent to certain death. I will again say Spain. Nobody forced people there to fight. And they did. Why?

A major reason violent and criminal individuals don't act out is fear of being caught. Most people do have better things to do, but there are psychopaths and sociopaths among us, and there always will be. And some of those will become leaders in whatever social or political strata they occupy.

The Swiss canton model will not work in most places because arable land is a scarce resource which is vital to agriculture which is in turn fundamental to modern human existence.

The ordinary Joe in a war zone is living a shit life because their country is riven by internal struggle--read, ANARCHY--or they are being attacked by another hostile country. Whoever you want to blame, internal or external forces, that country's military has failed in their duty.

The simple life is a great ideal, but it is sophomoric to try and impose some anarchic society upon what exists now. I'm all for decentralization, to a point. However, it cannot exist as a foundation due to inherent--yes, even romanticized--instability.

Check out The Imperial Animal by Lionel Tiger (all his stuff really) if you want to learn more about how humans work, not just how they think.

ANARCHY is not internal struggle. Arable land has always been a scarce resource vital to agriculture. I did not propose a simple life. I proposed being self-sustainable not ditching all luxury and or development of technology. Ill check him out.

I think you just cant accept the possibility of something fundamentally different.

Make it happen.

I really hope I have a chance to be part.