> Anarchy also has much lower baseline density. I agree. I stated this elsewhere as "historically, coercive systems scale more easily" > You can have anarchy

> Anarchy also has much lower baseline density. I agree. I stated this elsewhere as "historically, coercive systems scale more easily" > You can have anarchy between tribes in the Amazon or Far North, but not in a metropolis. There is some evidence for this, but I don't believe it's a law. Consider that the republican form of government was seen in much the same way prior to the American Revolution. At the time, it had last been tried in Rome. It's actually fairly difficult to find demographics for the Roman Republic, but their census seems to show approximately 250k males eligible for military service at any given time. From there, let's say that until the ratification of the US Constitution the most successful republican state was the Roman Republic, with fewer than one million people living under it and it lasting about 400 years (from the overthrow of the monarchy in ~509 BC to Sulla being named dictator in 82 BC. Today, the US has a population of ~335m people and it is 235 years old. It's not unreasonable to think that a future implementation of an "anarchic system" might has something like the same level of success relative to historic precedent. Personally I think this is not only possible, but likely, given the changes to human social behavior as a consequence of technology. > Be wary that many proponents of Anarchy may be the criminally inclined types, so they don't actually have any magical trick to make anarchy non-violent - it's just OK for them to live in violent society because they'll be on top. Think Makhno band. I literally couldn't agree more. I'm an anarchist who views other self-described "anarchists" with approximately the same level of caution and distrust as law enforcement. People who wish to impose their will upon others are drawn to ideologies that they believe will make it easier for them to do so. That's just a fact.