States did exist, just because it was the strongest man in the tribe declaring the rules arbitrarily didn’t make it not a state.
Comment on How would a stateless society handle serious threats such as mass murder and terrorism?
Deceptichum@quokk.au 3 days agoStates didn’t exist until a few thousand years ago. Hundreds of thousands of years of human history never had states.
You don’t need a state to function and reducing the concept of state to encapsulate non-state things (eg. Parenting) is a bit silly.
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 days ago
We co-operated, it was never a case of strongest = leader. They alpha shit is inaccurate.
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
In wolves it’s fake, in humans it’s quite accurate.
It still exists today so don’t tell me it was never a case of the strongest = leader. Drug cartels are effectively states, and ruled by extreme violence (even internally)
Even if your argument were accurate, that would be considered a state. A group of people agreeing on rules together is a state.
Like I said, with few enough people and it could be considered “not a state” but there isn’t any realistic way to have a stateless society of even tens of thousands of people, let alone the millions and billions of people that exist these days.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 days ago
No, it is not accurate in humans at all.
Go learn some biology and human history, you are clearly not informed enough to be having opinions here if you’re at the level of thinking alpha is a thing in people.
lurch@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
That’s true, but in those ages ppl still got speared in the back or ritually sacrificed. So is this more successful than all of todays states in case of murdering and terrorising? I doubt it.
Azzu@lemm.ee 3 days ago
Also, if there are a couple tribes enough distance apart to each be self-sufficient, there is no incentive to even have a state. Government/states only became useful once too many people lived too closely together.