# How would an anarchist society function?



## Crichax (Jun 22, 2019)

So, capitalism and the state has lead to the situation we're in now, where big companies censor, and the EU and Australia monitor what people can do on the internet. But what if that changed? What if at least one country in the world went full anarchist (where people form committees to pass laws and decisions), and the state was abolished (along with money)?

There would be no motive for stealing (since money would be abolished). Also, there would be much less cash grab sequels or mockbusters in the world (since money would be abolished).

However, there are several problems an anarchist society (and the removal of money) would bring.

I have a feeling the fishing industry would suffer, since only volunteers would fish. Because fishermen wouldn't be paid to fish, people wouldn't be motivated to fish as much.

Importing and exporting between countries would also be significantly lessened, since (again) only volunteers would do the work of importing and exporting.

So, what do you think? How would the society of one country be affected if it went anarchist? Also, how would the whole world be affected if it followed suit?


----------



## break these cuffs (Jun 22, 2019)

It wouldn't


----------



## PL 001 (Jun 22, 2019)

Pipe dream that would never work. They can wax poetic about how much of a Utopia a government free society would be, but the truth of the matter is whenever there is a moment to seize a position of power or authority, someone will be more than happy to dick over everyone else to get to the top and claim it.


----------



## oldTireWater (Jun 22, 2019)

It could only work with a much, much smaller population. You've got to give a shit about the people around you for social standards to take the place of legally enforced laws.


----------



## Judge Holden (Jun 22, 2019)

Same way any other system predicated on absolutely nobody in that society ever acting selfishly or cynically or violently for their own advantage works out


----------



## break these cuffs (Jun 22, 2019)

All that really matters is how much I'm going to be able to rape.


----------



## WhoBusTank69 (Jun 22, 2019)

Governments will form eventually and spread by force, and we'll have come full circle.
As long as someone has an idea that doesn't sound shit or has the charisma to back it up there will always be a form of government because there is security in numbers and people get warm and fuzzy with likeminded company.


----------



## Tootsie Bear (Jun 22, 2019)

oldTireWater said:


> It could only work with a much, much smaller population. You've got to give a shit about the people around you for social standards to take the place of legally enforced laws.


The main challenge anarchist from all schools of thought have to face is reality. As much I dislike capitalism you can't simply have a revolution to demolish it then try to live happily ever after. There's a reason why rival groups take power after a revolution because there's now a power vacuum and people's needs, whatever they are, need to be met, and if Anarchist can't provide for them they're going to join whoever can provide for their needs.


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Jun 22, 2019)

break these cuffs said:


> All that really matters is how much I'm going to be able to rape.
> View attachment 810919



Grab them by the pussy = seize the means of (re)production.

Really makes you think...


----------



## SigueSigueSpergnik (Jun 22, 2019)

Oingo Boingo - Capitalism - 1983
					

*FOR YOUR LISTENING ENJOYMENT ONLY* What is the openVAULT you ask? It's quite simple. Music that for lack of a better analogy, has been locked away from the ...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## Clop (Jun 22, 2019)

Money's abolishment wouldn't stop stealing, though. Money's only the measurement of your craft and skill. Someone's just going to steal your squirrel skins instead.


----------



## Tetra (Jun 22, 2019)

Crichax said:


> There would be no motive for stealing (since money would be abolished).



 What about the thrill of the chase

Hell some companies these days probably doesn't even censor for profit, but because they think they know what's best for society which likely wouldn't change in any money-less society.


----------



## von Hapasbourg (Jun 22, 2019)

It didn't work in Catalonia. Doubt that it would ever work anywhere else.


----------



## Damn Near (Jun 22, 2019)

Only teenagers believe in anarchism, because they're stupid


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 22, 2019)

I wonder how many self-proclaimed “anarchists” are actually just minarchists and how many are true and honest anarchists


----------



## Syaoran Li (Jun 22, 2019)

Anarchism of any kind is idiotic bullshit, as is any kind of communism.

That's why I support capitalism (NOT corporatism) and an egalitarian republic, or as close to an egalitarian government as one can get with human nature being as flawed as it is.


----------



## Otterly (Jun 22, 2019)

Crichax said:


> What if at least one country in the world went full anarchist (where people form committees to pass laws and decisions),



Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think anarchists do committees?

Short answer is it wouldn’t function. The strong would prey on the weak, society would fall apart. Capitalism really is the least worst option. The rest is trying to strike a balance between a government small enough to not be repressive but big enough to Make Stuff Work.

Not actually having a named government isn’t always dreadful. It can be - Mogadishu isn’t a terribly functional place. But Belgium, which couldn’t elect anyone for a year, managed fairly well, as has NI. The apparatus of the state keeps stuff ticking over for a bit even if the Cabinet is dicking about,

Edited for my sodding autocorrect


----------



## Malodorous Merkin (Jun 22, 2019)

The people who call for anarchy the loudest, are always the people who could survive anarchy the least.

I once saw a big fat slob rolling along at a protest in a cripple cart and holding up an anarchy sign.

If real anarchy ever hit, that slob would fast become human cattle, and he'd be roasting on a spit over a tire fire before the sun went down on Day 1 of Anarchyworld.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Jun 22, 2019)

I would sharpen a stick, poke both your eyes out with it, rape your dog, your father and any witnesses to my acts, then burn your house down. 

When the community put me to trial for my actions I would explain that OP is a faggot, then everyone would stand up and clap and we'd ride jetskis.


----------



## AF 802 (Jun 22, 2019)

Any political extreme is dumb and you're dumb if you believe in it.


----------



## NIGGO KILLA (Jun 22, 2019)




----------



## Ghost of Wesley Willis (Jun 22, 2019)

There was an interaction I had with an ancom a couple years back that wanted gun control. I asked them how they would enforce a gun ban in an anarchist society and they replied "well we'd create an internal organization of trusted community members to confiscate them" and I told them "congratulations you created a police force".


----------



## byuu (Jun 22, 2019)

Malodorous Merkin said:


> If real anarchy ever hit, that slob would fast become human cattle, and he'd be roasting on a spit over a tire fire before the sun went down on Day 1 of Anarchyworld.


They're all fat and no meat. You should use him for soap instead.


----------



## ES 148 (Jun 22, 2019)

Anarchy as a concept only exists in relation to a power structure. As soon as one person decides to be the top dog, or part of a group of top dogs, you don't have an anarchy, you have an organisation. 
If we somehow achieved anarchy, it would last for less than a second before people - being pack animals by nature - automatically adhere to some form of power structure.

Communism only works to _any _degree (i.e. not falling apart _immediately_) because it at least says 'the state exists as a separate entity, and it does have authority' even if the hope there is that the state is still run by the people. Anarchy leads to a state. Even a roving criminal gang a la Mad Max is still a form of society/state.

TL;DR - lmao as soon as you suck someone's dick you've destroyed anarchy


----------



## An Account (Jun 22, 2019)

I'd support an anarchist society if it was walled off from the rest of the world, had hidden cameras everywhere livestreaming their feed for everyone to view, and if we airdropped drugs, weapons, and homeless people on a semi-regular basis.


----------



## School of Fish (Jun 22, 2019)

The short answer: No, it can't really work in the long run.

The long answer: In practice, anarchy would just result is everything looking like something out of Mad Max where survival of the fittest would then be the pecking order by default. So at the end of the day you still need some sort of structure of authority to keep people accountable and to make sure that there is order and stability for said society. Why do you think that humanity invented civilization in the first place? I mean really, pretty much no one wants to live in a world where they can end up getting killed, robbed, or abused by someone far bigger and stronger than them and not have those types of thugs go unpunished for their actions.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Jun 22, 2019)

An Account said:


> I'd support an anarchist society if it was walled off from the rest of the world, had hidden cameras everywhere livestreaming their feed for everyone to view, and if we airdropped drugs, weapons, and homeless people on a semi-regular basis.


Just take a little journey to the Lower East Side of Vancouver and you'll have your wish.


----------



## Some JERK (Jun 22, 2019)

Hey remember that one episode of _Walking Dead _ where Negan tells Rick _"Give us half of your shit or we'll kill you..."_?

It would be a lot like that, but worse.


----------



## Creep3r (Jun 22, 2019)

Crichax said:


> where people form committees to pass laws and decisions


Wouldn't these committees just turn into a new government? What's to stop them from becoming a government? How would they be elected? Would they fight to the death? Prove themselves by showing what brilliant intellectuals they are? And what's keeping them from becoming as corrupt as any other previous government?



> There would be no motive for stealing (since money would be abolished).


No. People would just steal other's belongings because there wouldn't be enough things people want to go around because there's too many fucking people. Only place communism will ever remotely seem to work is in incredibly small, isolated and primitive communities and in the Smurf Forest.

Anarchy sounds beyond fucking stupi-


> Also, there would be much less cash grab sequels or mockbusters in the world.


*WTF I LOVE ANARCHY!



*


----------



## Black Waltz (Jun 22, 2019)

I get to kill and rob whoever I want and no one can stop me


----------



## morbidly-obese-steven (Jun 22, 2019)

Anarchy = too easy to slip into totalitarianism, feudalism, autocracy or kratocracy or some other kind of society I rather wouldn't wanna live, pls no.

Tho all anarchist I know personally are sheltered fucks leeching off their parents or welfare that INDEED kind of explains why they see the system to make sense. If people cover my ass now, in some lord of the flies world it has to happen too, right? Like I would love to send these people to Siberia to survive with a few people from some local prison having to join the group of brave anarchists and ask their opinion of anarchy after that experience dealing with people who don't have issue to hurt you or take shit from you.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 22, 2019)

Vrakks said:


> Anarchy as a concept only exists in relation to a power structure. As soon as one person decides to be the top dog, or part of a group of top dogs, you don't have an anarchy, you have an organisation.
> If we somehow achieved anarchy, it would last for less than a second before people - being pack animals by nature - automatically adhere to some form of power structure.
> 
> Communism only works to _any _degree (i.e. not falling apart _immediately_) because it at least says 'the state exists as a separate entity, and it does have authority' even if the hope there is that the state is still run by the people. Anarchy leads to a state. Even a roving criminal gang a la Mad Max is still a form of society/state.
> ...



Technically we could have anarchy, but first we'd need to make sure everyone was hopped up on ICE and speed 24/7 so they'd just lash out at anything nearby or start eating their own arms.  Because as soon as they come to their senses and start co-operating they are starting to form a tribe, and then that tribe would kick everyones ass til another bigger tribe comes along and so on and so on until a form of government comes into being.

So anarchy is inherently against human biological programming, you'd need to make sure it was never ending chaos, poison the atmosphere or water with some neurological pathogen.


----------



## Ted_Breakfast (Jun 22, 2019)

The strong and clever would rule and then it'd turn into old fashioned despotism.


----------



## Anonymous For This (Jun 22, 2019)

Damn Near said:


> Only teenagers believe in anarchism, because they're stupid



I mean, Stefan Molyneux is over fifty, but he does have the mental prowess of a twelve year old.  He runs circles around the autists he allows on his show.


----------



## CivilianOfTheFandomWars (Jun 22, 2019)

Every play a Fallout game? Kind of like that.


----------



## Damn Near (Jun 22, 2019)

Anonymous For This said:


> I mean, Stefan Molyneux is over fifty, but he does have the mental prowess of a twelve year old.  He runs circles around the autists he allows on his show.


If you believe in anarchism, a more competent person is supporting you, since you're stupid


----------



## Son of Odin (Jun 22, 2019)

Anarcho-Primitivism is the best form of anarchism.
BRB smashing my computer with a rock and then lobotomizing myself so I can no longer use language other than caveman grunts.


----------



## Fork Cartel (Jun 22, 2019)

Lmao at all the people saying it’d be rule of the strongest as if it isn’t already how we live


----------



## Crichax (Jun 22, 2019)

GeneralFriendliness said:


> Wouldn't these committees just turn into a new government? What's to stop them from becoming a government? How would they be elected? Would they fight to the death? Prove themselves by showing what brilliant intellectuals they are? And what's keeping them from becoming as corrupt as any other previous government?
> 
> No. People would just steal other's belongings because there wouldn't be enough things people want to go around because there's too many fucking people. Only place communism will ever remotely seem to work is in incredibly small, isolated and primitive communities and in the Smurf Forest.
> 
> ...



https://theanarchistlibrary.org/lib...re-collective-the-anarchist-response-to-crime

I disagree with much of what the Anarchist Library says (saying that "Anarchists do not believe in a death penalty" with no evidence to back it up, and abolishing prisons), but their propositions for enforcing law are interesting. Tribunals (i.e. community chosen committees) would function as judge and jury, and the community would decide (most likely vote) on how people are punished. This isn't true anarchy (which would be foolish to pursue for obvious reasons), but this kind of government would be interesting to see in action as a social experiment.

However, I believe that anarchy would fail for the simple reason that the mining industry would grind to a halt simply because without money, there is no incentive for anyone to mine. And with no resources obtained from mining, the tech and transport industries would eventually dry up, leaving people with only older cars, computers, and other devices. They would all break down someday, leaving the world in chaos. 

And with no mining resources, we won't be able to go to space, which means that humanity would eventually be blown up by the sun once it dies.

Anarchy is an interesting thought experiment and alternative to the state and capitalistic systems I've gotten tired of, but if it is executed, it will most likely (99.999% chance) lead to humanity's eventual death.

Reading everyone's responses has been very informative, and allowed me to come to my own conclusion. Thank you.


----------



## IAmNotAlpharius (Jun 22, 2019)

WhoBusTank69 said:


> Governments will form eventually and spread by force, and we'll have come full circle.
> 
> As long as someone has an idea that doesn't sound shit or has the charisma to back it up there will always be a form of government because there is security in numbers and people get warm and fuzzy with likeminded company.



Totally agree. Take away the government and we’d form tribes around powerful and charismatic individuals.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 22, 2019)

IAmNotAlpharius said:


> Totally agree. Take away the government and we’d form tribes around powerful and charismatic individuals.


That's literally just government with extra steps


----------



## V0dka (Jun 23, 2019)

Fork Cartel said:


> Lmao at all the people saying it’d be rule of the strongest as if it isn’t already how we live



If it were rule of the strongest this guy would be emperor of the world.






You need numbers, you need co-operation, or coercion.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jun 23, 2019)

Son of Odin said:


> Anarcho-Primitivism is the best form of anarchism.


*LONG LIVE THE GIGADEATHS TO COME!



*


----------



## Fork Cartel (Jun 23, 2019)

V0dka said:


> If it were rule of the strongest this guy would be emperor of the world.
> View attachment 811970
> 
> 
> You need numbers, you need co-operation, or coercion.


Strength isn’t only measured in muscles you know


----------



## QI 541 (Jun 23, 2019)

Any anarchy will eventually form a society.  Nature is inherently anarchist and every time there's enough people together they form a society.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Jun 24, 2019)

The central flaw with anarchism is it's assumption that government is principally an instrument of coercion. While this may seem true on the surface, the reality is that the opposite is much closer to the truth. In a lawless society, people have the ability to coerce others freely, with no obvious accountability. In our society, we have a government which places clear limits on coercion.

To bring this back to the original question of how an anarchist society would function: it would function much like a tyrannical one, with laws being decided arbitrarily by whoever happens to be in a position to enforce them. This makes anarchism a pretty self-defeating idea if the goal is to maximize freedom and liberty.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jun 28, 2019)

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that nuclear weapons made anarchism obsolete. Dismantling a nuclear-armed state just means you get a bunch of randos with nukes and a much lower threshold for using them. If you seize the state first, dismantle the nukes, then dismantle the state, then you're just a Leninist. And in that case, good luck not getting picked off one by one now that you have no way to check their military power. So with only a handful of entities that have nukes, and MAD as a deterrence, the only way out of the dilemma really is to seize all of the states, dismantle all of the nukes, and then dismantle all of the states. Which again is what Communists have been trying to do for the past century or so. 

I think there's a reason why there hasn't been a successful anarchist project since the invention of steamships and rifled artillery. 150 years ago you might have been able to break away from some country or colony and hold out until they got sick of fighting you. But with the kind of lopsided military power that nation states can deploy I don't think that possible now, except in fake cases like Rojava which are superficially "anarchist" while allowing themselves to be propped up by + support the agenda of powerful nation states.


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Jun 30, 2019)

If OP is genuine, then he/she needs to read about the Anarchist movements in Spain and ultimately their failures.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 30, 2019)

An Account said:


> I'd support an anarchist society if it was walled off from the rest of the world, had hidden cameras everywhere livestreaming their feed for everyone to view, and if we airdropped drugs, weapons, and homeless people on a semi-regular basis.


If we're going to do this, let me float the idea that only some of the homeless people are given working parachutes?


----------



## Teri-Teri (Jul 1, 2019)

Think about France during the Reign of Terror.


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (Jul 1, 2019)

WinterMoonsLight said:


> Pipe dream that would never work. They can wax poetic about how much of a Utopia a government free society would be, but the truth of the matter is whenever there is a moment to seize a position of power or authority, someone will be more than happy to dick over everyone else to get to the top and claim it.



Humans are inherently hierarchical, and inherently social. They also have a instinctive need to be greedy, and compete for social status. That's my shitty summation of your point.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jul 1, 2019)




----------



## ZeCommissar (Jul 1, 2019)

A anarchist society will always be beaten by a organized nation.  A anarchist "society" would not have a standing military to defend itself which is critical in a modern war. It would AT BEST have a militia who's only chance of winning would be some vietcong style guerilla warfare.


----------



## Vitoze (Jul 1, 2019)

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost said:


> If OP is genuine, then he/she needs to read about the Anarchist movements in Spain and ultimately their failures.


If they are, they likely blame it on infighting, not the fact that you don't go burning churches and expect support from catholic peasants.  Amote General Franco.


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Jul 1, 2019)

ZeCommissar said:


> A anarchist society will always be beaten by a organized nation.  A anarchist "society" would not have a standing military to defend itself which is critical in a modern war. It would AT BEST have a militia who's only chance of winning would be some vietcong style guerilla warfare.



But to run a Vietcong style campaign would require hierarchies and organisation.......


----------



## GethN7 (Jul 1, 2019)

Anarchy is opposition to any form of organized government, and it's doomed to fail.

Viktor Suvurov wrote in one of his books about the Soviet Union how stateless states don't work, saying if you gave a bunch of kids a tent, told them to build it, but didn't put one in charge, a leader or leading group would emerge in ten minutes.

It's quasi-instinctive for any animal with any form of intelligence that cannot survive alone to group together thus form a society. Yeah, there are some people who don't need to group together, but if the choice of not forming a society is death, one is gonna form out of mere survival instinct.

Anarchism is horseshit that will not work on anything more than a single person level at best, it cannot function as mass of individuals, that would eventually subvert its very purpose in a very short period of time.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Jul 3, 2019)

It would function like this: I'm in charge of society now, we're no longer anarchy, we're a despotism under me.

Now a few things could happen. Maybe everyone says "OK" and now we're a despotism, no more anarchy.
Maybe everyone says "Fuck you dipshit, you and what army?" Oops they just made a collective decision and are a democracy now. No more anarchy.
Maybe everyone says "Fuck you dipshit, you and what army?" and I shoot them, then the rest of the people hide.  Now we just fucking formed two governments, mine, and the democracy in exile. No more anarchy, plus an extra government!

"Anarchy" is just like "Abolishing capitalism".  You're taking an innate human behavior (we're a social animal that forms packs, and we also value our time, comfort, and safety) and claiming it's coming from outside.  But it doesn't. It has to be artificially put on top of the existing system.  How does a region stay an anarchy? Is someone enforcing it?


----------



## DK 699 (Jul 4, 2019)

It wouldn't work, because hierarchical relationships are an essential part of being human.


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Jul 4, 2019)

The simple fact is, is that even historically in cases where anarchism reigned for longer term periods eventually they are usurped by some other form of government entirely whether despotic or egalitarian. 

Anarchic societies are doomed to failure, because of the inherit flaw in the system which is the lack of structure in a society. Now it can take an existing structured society through a period of instability, because of the basic structures already being established. But the moment that any level of complexity is added in to things, that isn't beyond the basics of survival, it must either have a responsible figure or leader emerge, or else it will cease to function, or revert to a very primitive structure. Neither of which are good for societies. 

This goes for infrastructure, things like water and sewage, food distribution and creation, law and order. Unless it's on a naturally smaller scale, and for a shortened period of time, none of these things work without some level of dysfunction or complete failure over an extended period of time. 

There is a reason that slab city essentially isn't a fully functioning society, despite having existed for many years, and previously having had the means to fulfill the needs of a basic community. And yet the system since the decommission by the army bases has devolved, not evolved despite having the opportunity to do so. 

Because it lacks any form of leadership or enforcement outside of a loose community of volunteers. 
Purely voluntary systems don't work, and what happens when you piss off the wrong volunteer, like the person in the desert who controls the water supply. 

The black anarchist movements in parts of Spain managed to withstand both Marxist and Franco for an extended period, because the complexity of the society wasn't so complicated that it required more than a basic level of cooperation by the residents of these towns and villages. The society functioned on this basic level, because the systems in place existed before the erasure of the local government, and even then it was not a trade-less society. 

They ran the system on a barter system, and law an order was maintained through mutual co-operation and local vigilance. Which in a small scale system is possible, and in cases of severe crime simply meant the lynching of the perpetrator.  

There were no areas where the government had a mandate, such as infrastructure and repair that didn't get attended to because it was of benefit to the local peasants to maintain it, and furthermore since the period only lasted 9 to 2 years at most cases before governments re-established control, maintenance during that period wouldn't have required any complex repairs. 

Aside from that, the quality of life would not have improved or change from the time of governmental control aside from the perceived removal of bi-laws that affected people on a bureaucratic level. Sure they weren't paying taxes, but since money had no value either, the two elements cancel each other out. 

You also have to think that these were peasants living in simple societal village structures, and so there wasn't a high level of complexity to retain or maintain.

Ultimately the experiment came to an end, because other Marxist Anarchist from outside tried to implement a form of government, which led to the towns and villages being conquered by Francoist troops and reprisals against the villages for not having sided with Franco. 

Anyone who truly wants a life free from any form of government influences, should either settle a cabin up in Alaska, or change their thinking and support a smaller less involved government to be honest. 

If your the type of person that just wants to destroy things, then don't pretend there is an ideology behind it.


----------



## LuckyCharms (Jul 4, 2019)

Play fallout or borderlands to see how anarchy works


----------



## casE sensiTive (Jul 4, 2019)

>everyone fights for themselves
>people start figuring out by teaming up they can accomplish more
>larger and larger groups form
>groups need leadership
And anarchism is no more.


----------



## Eris! (Jul 8, 2019)

Functioning is defined by measurement against some criteria or goal. Capitalist democracy "functions" in that it protects property rights and equal protection under the law. Communism fails to function in that it does not successfuly produce a classless egalitarian society.

There are many kinds of anarchism, with many different goals. I think most of them are dumb. I don't know if there's a name for the kind of society I want, but i would define it as this: There should be no goal for society, no objective, no system by which it is structured and no standard against it is measured. Whatever happens, let it happened. Let the organics of humanity and society just happen. Whatever results from that is irrelevant.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Jul 8, 2019)

LuckyCharms said:


> Play fallout or borderlands to see how anarchy works


So... it's a place where some people are inexplicably dying of thirst while a five second expedition would leave them richer than their so called leaders?  And also a thing where... somehow... waves and waves of bandits can suicide charge defended enclaves and yet there are always more?

They're fun games, but I wouldn't use them to draw conclusions about the real world...


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jul 8, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> So... it's a place where some people are inexplicably dying of thirst while a five second expedition would leave them richer than their so called leaders?  And also a thing where... somehow... waves and waves of bandits can suicide charge defended enclaves and yet there are always more?
> 
> They're fun games, but I wouldn't use them to draw conclusions about the real world...


I prefer the part where a random mailman, in the course of completing his delivery, stumbles upon three different factions vying for control of a major city, and decides to fuck them all over and take control for himself 

It's good to have life goals, is what I'm saying.


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 9, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> So... it's a place where some people are inexplicably dying of thirst while a five second expedition would leave them richer than their so called leaders?  And also a thing where... somehow... waves and waves of bandits can suicide charge defended enclaves and yet there are always more?
> 
> They're fun games, but I wouldn't use them to draw conclusions about the real world...



I think they meant the universe minus the fact that your playable character is basically an unkillable god human. 

Chris Avelone basically argues that new states would arise in a stateless world and he's basically right. I'm a big fan of the way the NCR is written because its basically a cool amalgamation of all of its cities. It kinda is like the USA, southern California is like Yankee land, a combination of utopian idealists and cutthroat businessmen. North California is like Dixieland and the midwest, a place run by aristocratic types and criminal elements. 

States form naturally as state power is necessary for stability and stability is ultimate power so states naturally get stronger and inspire the creation of other states. 

Do you know why Europe and Japan are dominated the 19th and 20th centuries? The answer is that they were stable. This stability allowed them to develop a mercantile class, joint stock companies and reduce taxes or build armies to conquer the world.


----------



## x.eight.six.systems (Jul 9, 2019)

If society has broken down I would have me and a bunch of friends take control of the local water supply and charge for the use of it with my own currency.


----------



## Eris! (Jul 9, 2019)

The truth is we already live in an anarchist society. Rules only matter because we choose to let them matter.
This is the society you chose.


----------



## Yaito-Chan (Jul 9, 2019)

Squatter's rights!


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Jul 9, 2019)

Erischan said:


> The truth is we already live in an anarchist society. Rules only matter because we choose to let them matter.
> This is the society you chose.


Well sorta, we are social animals. It's not as if we could all go live on our own hermit crab style, we're not made for it. I think some form of collaborative society is inevitable. Thus I think some form of government becomes inevitable.

I mean, yeah, it's not some absolute order imposed from above, it's as real as we make it.  Yeah everything is anarchy until the cops show up and put you in cuffs, but that's also known as not anarchy.


----------



## Basil II (Jul 9, 2019)

It gets conquered by Franco.


----------



## Niggernerd (Jul 9, 2019)

It'd be fun and games until someone named Turner makes a thunderdome and attacks feral orphans


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Jul 9, 2019)

Niggernerd said:


> It'd be fun and games until someone named Turner makes a thunderdome and attacks feral orphans


This is a very good point. Society must never, ever get Beyond Thunderdome. To be honest, even getting to the point of Thunderdome should be troubling.


----------

