Tribal warfare is pretty much the natural state of things though. I went through a brief history a few weeks ago: https://steemit.com/war/@telos/nuclear-weapons-the-path-to-peace
Short version, we were engaging in tribal warfare over resources long before government was invented.
OK so Germany, Turkey, Egypt and Russia... that's 4 (or 5 if you count Germany twice) out of how many? 20?
It's also telling that when people try to create anarchist regions they fail, often due to infighting. TDV himself was involved in a project where they all ended up suing each other.
I completely agree. Tribal conflicts are a natural state on low tech. Not sure you can call it war as in most cases the tribes will try to stay out of each others territories. But if one side sees a big enough advantage they will claim the resources.
The interesting thing is how it will develop with global communications and distributed consensus. In the end the question is how can you defend a free society from internal and external threats. Democracy is protected only when we stand up for our freedom and defend it. The same is true for Anarchism. The big historical advance of Democracy is the ability to find consensus, while anarchy had no answer to this problem. But these days are almost over.
I think Democracy is a little more than consensus, it also provides non-violent ways to gain leadership which groups will always want for their own advantage. For instance a lot of what we're seeing now with the rise of "nationalism" really boils down to tribalism and people feeling like they are losing out to other tribes. In a non-Democracy they might already be resorting to violence.
Not sure what you mean with regards to anarchy and consensus unless you're thinking direct voting?
I think that democracy is not offering a peaceful way to reach consensus. Any law is ultimately enforced by violence. In brexit 49% have to suffer from a policy they do not support. Powerful interest groups can gain massive influence over the democratic process and then do not only affect the people reached directly by their propaganda, but everyone. Voting is juts enforcing one's own will on others using the power of the state.
In anarchy I am talking about realising a flat hierarchy without any trusted central entities. This is organisation by voluntary association to decentralised and borderless communities. Because it is hard to really understand the idea let me give a related example. Imagine we can all sign up to different states as we see fit. By doing this we accept their rules and are subject to the corresponding jurisdiction. Now everyone can have the governance they like without having to resort to voting to enforce consensus. When the opinions of the people are split (as in brexit), they can just go different ways. With old technology this is hard to realise, but we have made huge progress and are still stuck in an industrial age type of governance.
So what happens when someone in one of these borderless communities violates the rules of that community?
Perhaps more importantly, what happens when a person in one community violates the rules of another one in a way that affects a member of the first community?
For instance, let's say that Mary belongs to a community which outlaws rape. Her neighbor Tim belongs to a community in which rape is legal. What happens if Tim rapes Mary?
to your first question, the same that happens when a democracy turns into a dictatorship. Only since they are borderless it might be easier to leave the sinking ship.
The second question is already a problem now when disputes between countries with different laws are settled. Community A would have to negotiate with community B. What is most important is that community A has promised security against rape and will need to compensate Mary.
Since your example is a quite extreme one it is easy to answer. Either community B makes Tim accept the verdict under community A's law and make it clear that B people are only allowed to rape other B people. Or B would get massive problems with all other communities and would be excluded from intercommunity cooperation. The other communities will apply economic pressure and no longer value other deals with B people. To avoid compensation payments higher security measures would be installed targeting B people.
In essence B people will be separated from economy have to fear for their safety and eventually have to move to a little island where they can all rape each other in peace.
In addition it is hard to imagine that you will even find a lot of people joining such a community. People are crazy, but not that crazy.
The hard parts are the little differences like neighbours complaining about too loud music...