3 ms·

> we should literally have no government or society to speak of I don't think society is dependent on government. > would mean literally no power Literally n

> we should literally have no government or society to speak of I don't think society is dependent on government. > would mean literally no power Literally no power ensconced in the hands of a _single individual_, I think was the point.

autoexec 3y ago
> I don't think society is dependent on government. Is that a hypothetical or are there large and successful societies around today that don't have one (or a group by some other name fulfilling the same function)?
- akira2501 3y ago
  You'd have to more thoroughly define "successful." You'd also have to explain why you think the lack of one would prove any point.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    It's not that the lack of one proves it's impossible, but if one existed it'd sure be evidence that government isn't a requirement. As for "successful" I suppose that is very much subjective. Is there one you'd consider to be successful?
int_19h 3y ago
There are no historical or current examples of societies larger than a tribe that are lacking any form of government. The thing that is not mandatory, however, is the state, which is not a synonym. State-based government is centralized government, but government does not necessarily need to be centralized to the point where the result is a state.
- akira2501 3y ago
  You are limiting your definition of society to one that can be described by defended political borders. It's circular and tautological. I would argue that the internet is a society that's broader than these political borders, obviously exists, and does so entirely outside of government control. I would suggest you both missed this definition of society.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Not at all. On the contrary, what we can see in those distributed internet societies (internet as a whole is not a society, it's a medium) like e.g. Wikipedia, is that various forms of organized governance also emerge past a certain scale. There are extremely few places on the internet that are fully ungoverned.

autoexec 3y ago

> I don't think society is dependent on government. Is that a hypothetical or are there large and successful societies around today that don't have one (or a group by some other name fulfilling the same function)?

akira2501 3y ago
You'd have to more thoroughly define "successful." You'd also have to explain why you think the lack of one would prove any point.
- autoexec 3y ago
  It's not that the lack of one proves it's impossible, but if one existed it'd sure be evidence that government isn't a requirement. As for "successful" I suppose that is very much subjective. Is there one you'd consider to be successful?

int_19h 3y ago

There are no historical or current examples of societies larger than a tribe that are lacking any form of government. The thing that is not mandatory, however, is the state, which is not a synonym. State-based government is centralized government, but government does not necessarily need to be centralized to the point where the result is a state.

akira2501 3y ago
You are limiting your definition of society to one that can be described by defended political borders. It's circular and tautological. I would argue that the internet is a society that's broader than these political borders, obviously exists, and does so entirely outside of government control. I would suggest you both missed this definition of society.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Not at all. On the contrary, what we can see in those distributed internet societies (internet as a whole is not a society, it's a medium) like e.g. Wikipedia, is that various forms of organized governance also emerge past a certain scale. There are extremely few places on the internet that are fully ungoverned.