That’s the key difference. A tiny group of people can reach consensus, a large group literally cannot. Not when electing a representative, or even setting policy through direct voting.
The origins of the word libertarian were actually closest to being anarchist. But that shit doesn’t work.
The whole, no government just neighbors who talk to each other sounds great on paper, but fails the second the community has more than about 150 people.
There’s a reason why Amish and Mennonite communities formally split at 150 people. Because our brains cannot handle it.
>The origins of the word libertarian were actually closest to being anarchist.
“libertarian socialists”, yea. it’s great that you mentioned the amish but you didn’t finish explaining why they are relevant: anabaptists are the majority of christian anarchists.
Again, you cannot have anything like an anarchist paradise because there are too many people. Full stop.
Tiny communities who separate themselves away from everyday society can sort of do it, but they either have to go to extreme lengths to not integrate or they are completely dependent on the larger society. Just like house cats, who wouldn’t know what a mouse is if one crawled across their nose.
All because of Dunbar’s number and our brains not being able to maintain anything like a community larger than about 150 people. And that’s with roughly 40% of a given person’s social energy actively devoted to maintaining those 150 relationships.
Saying that you’ll only accept that sort of “governance” is exactly like saying that you’ll only accept Bigfoot as president. The response to both are the exact same.
Small groups. Not large nations.
That’s the key difference. A tiny group of people can reach consensus, a large group literally cannot. Not when electing a representative, or even setting policy through direct voting.
>large nations.
>electing a representative, or even setting policy through direct voting.
i don’t like those things.
Ah, a libertarian house cat.
That always ends.
baby, i’m an anarchist
The origins of the word libertarian were actually closest to being anarchist. But that shit doesn’t work.
The whole, no government just neighbors who talk to each other sounds great on paper, but fails the second the community has more than about 150 people.
There’s a reason why Amish and Mennonite communities formally split at 150 people. Because our brains cannot handle it.
>The origins of the word libertarian were actually closest to being anarchist.
“libertarian socialists”, yea. it’s great that you mentioned the amish but you didn’t finish explaining why they are relevant: anabaptists are the majority of christian anarchists.
Again, you cannot have anything like an anarchist paradise because there are too many people. Full stop.
Tiny communities who separate themselves away from everyday society can sort of do it, but they either have to go to extreme lengths to not integrate or they are completely dependent on the larger society. Just like house cats, who wouldn’t know what a mouse is if one crawled across their nose.
All because of Dunbar’s number and our brains not being able to maintain anything like a community larger than about 150 people. And that’s with roughly 40% of a given person’s social energy actively devoted to maintaining those 150 relationships.
Saying that you’ll only accept that sort of “governance” is exactly like saying that you’ll only accept Bigfoot as president. The response to both are the exact same.
>you cannot have anything like an anarchist paradise because there are too many people. Full stop.
except every time there has been
Name some that had communities of more than 150 people. I’ll wait because you cannot.
>Saying that you’ll only accept that sort of “governance” is exactly like saying that you’ll only accept Bigfoot as president.
no. i wouldn’t accept bigfoot as president. we should destroy the office of the presidency.
The response is, go sit at the little table, the adults are talking.