It's a herding cats problem. With your narrow definitions, its unlikely an effort will manifest the ideals you seek. When you hand wave unsuccessful attempts at Anarchism, then you get sucked into the purity spiral while also disallowing yourself to learn from others mistakes by proxy. Minarchism is probably a more realistic outcome.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
So, a little rule by force is fine.
Who gets to call the shots, and why them?
I think the idea of minarchy is accountable leadership from smaller institutions. You could make it a rotation or lottery style if you think democratic process is flawed. Usually minarchs are more for defense from other nations and normal public stuff like roads. Mostly very libertarian in nature to keep overhead low.
Yes, it all boils down to rule by force.
If a utopia requires armed thugs to persist, it sucks.
Sounds like a voluntary buy in someone can opt into or not. The problem with framing that collective buy in is without it would leave people victims to tribalism so a stronger force would conquer without the minarchy. It's a paradox of tolerance issue. It's about striking a balance.
Without gov'ts, and only having neighbors, why would anybody attack another?
I do support strong self defense training.
Guns and ammo for everybody.