4 ms·

> full anarchy I know what you mean, but it's unfortunate that anarchism is sometimes a synonym for "no rules" when it doesn't mean that at all. I think this s

• dimitrios1 5y ago
  Right. I used to think this as well. In its most basic form, it means no ruler. I view anarchism as the ultimate counter to authoritarianism. The older I get, the more it becomes apparent to me that all of our world governments are authoritarian to a degree, including supposed democratic ones, and there seems to be this arbitrary threshold of "ok now we call this regime authoritarian". But every government rules through multiple forms of coercion. Some are more authoritarian than others, but nonetheless, authoritarian.
  • int_19h 5y ago
    My personal theory is that it's straight up impossible to have a non-authoritarian government involving more than Dunbar's number of people (counting both the governors and the governed). For larger numbers, the best you can do is a multi-level federated approach where the governing assemblies on each level have no more than that number of delegates from the level below.
    • dmitriid 5y ago
      Then you're likely run into a problem with communication. You can see in basically any large company: communication gets lost, misinterpreted, you end up depending on many other entities to do anything etc.