Absolute anarchy has been attempted.
Leave the city or town you are in an go to the isolated wilderness. Aside from the occasional representative of the state, it is anarchy. That is the natural order of things... society itself is an illusion agreed upon, much like this language we are using.
Humans band together and form tribes, and large structures of order emerge spontaneously- often through lots of blood as alpha males battle to assume authority.
Only in the context of a hunter-gatherer society. Being an agrarian species, we do not need "tribes". Hunter-gatherers also did not live in one location for the majority of their lives. As for blood to assume authority, it just proves my point that violence is an integral part of creating and maintaining power structures. Thanks for that one.
How do you imagine complex societies and empires emerged in the first place?
Correct. But some did arise peacefully, the conflicts between societies and empires were more a source of violence than their inceptions.
Anarchy is a power vacuum, and nature abhors vacuums. You must pick your poison, I'm afraid.
I disagree. There are a number of species that do not have established hierarchical societies and do fine, even those that do, there's always "lone wolves". Anyway we've transcended nature by creating the light bulb, so nature doesn't have any real bearing on man, aside from the laws of nature, which we are increasingly learning to circumvent, and I theorize, one day even alter entirely.
Mutualistic cooperation does not apply a structured form of government. If I were a farmer and you a tool maker, and I traded my food for your tools, we both benefit, with zero interference with government. Essentially anything the government does individuals can do for themselves.
If you ever go out in the wilderness with a group of people where there is no effective government presence, there is a short-term example of anarchy without the forming of government, each individual their own master. Even the temporary forming of a group with a designated leader can exist in this context, but where the difference is between government and this; when the task is done the group disbands... IE: sailors at sea. That cannot be said about nations. I recognize that people will naively cling to government because they've been indoctrinated to its requirement, but people have lived for thousands of years in rural communities with very little government presence, and managed well.
I'm also against massive corporations replacing the role of government, but massive corporations only exist because of the complex we've created by our society (see: government bailouts of corporations). A massive corporation won't exist without a strong government body in tandem... I can elaborate a lot more on this point, but it is too frustrating to really go on about without request.
Anyway, I've always felt strangely safer and more comfortable in more chaotic environments... but only recently have I really taken a severe hatred to every established form of governing.
)
