Hacker News Reader

Comment by sudosysgen | Hacker News Reader

Right, so you agree that it's better for you to have very limited power and exist without authority, in which case you'd have to confirm to most social norms or suffer consequences, than for authority to exist and for people like you to accede to it?

Because in our system, if you were to accumulate enough authority it wouldn't be in your interest anymore to follow laws.

View on HN

It's only better for me in an idealistic scenario where my local militia succeeds. If a bigger and stronger one comes around then my life could quickly become horrible.

I'd a bigger and stronger far away stranger militia wanted to come and invade you it wouldn't matter if you had authority or not.

It matters a lot if the authority is big enough that a random militia cannot topple them. A lone village can be raided with impunity, id the village is a part of a big country then soldiers will move in to protect them.

There is no reason to have such a small authorities. Anarchic societies managed to maintain armies strong enough to deter state actors. It comes with some small sacrifices, but it's still much better than otherwise.

In practice, your village can come to an agreement with other small villages and do military exercises together while still maintaining autonomy, and you can then maintain complex weapon systems and large armies.

> Anarchic societies managed to maintain armies strong enough to deter state actors.

I don't believe that, any link? City states are not anarchic nor are tribes.

I think it's very naive to think a local militia system of government would work like the game Top Trumps.

You'd still have a bunch of people thinking you are a jerk - the reason your life might quickly become horrible is because you've been a jerk to pretty much everyone by claiming that you need to rule them by force.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com