The reason states first emerged thousands of years ago – new research
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
James Scott—an anarchist—lays the point bare: the state functions much like an aged, institutionalized mafia. A stationary bandit, not fundamentally different from the predatory groups it claims to suppress.
Which happens to prevent immature, dumb and cruel mafias from taking over, the latter are the wet dream of Anarchists, that's why they hate governments.
> not fundamentally different from the predatory groups it claims to suppress
"Fundamentality" is in the eye of the beholder. The objective qualitative and quantitative differences are enormous however, the rest is mud in the eyes.
No, they hate governments because they think they’re a kind of mafia. Which anarchist likes cruel mafias?
Those anarchists who aren't dumb must like cruel mafias, this is a conclusion I reach by implication, not by their admission.
Anarchist's believes exclude or at least severely limit the state as a force that can prevent warlords, gangs and mob rule which inevitably arise in any power vacuum.
Ergo, those anarchists who aren't dumb, understand the above and by virtue of continuing to promote anarchy they prove that they like the inevitable result of their political program.
>Anarchist's believes exclude or at least severely limit the state as a force that can prevent warlords, gangs and mob rule which inevitably arise in any power vacuum.
This paper is not a good argument in support of Scott though. The methodology relies far too heavily on the notoriously lacking independence of SCCS cultures and language, then fails to fully consider whether the assumptions underlying the rest of the methodology hold. I'm pretty certain they don't.
I can see why the authors took the steps they did, but they really should have noticed some red flags at multiple points in the process, based on what's in the paper.