this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
925 points (98.5% liked)
Memes
54945 readers
1906 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Really, just about anybody that looks to historical examples to inform their perspective.
There are examples of non states working, but it is unclear if it would be possible to maintain large societies.
Non-states or weak states very quickly run into collective action problems which are made significantly worse at large scales. Generally, they work when the material conditions allow for it, for example, the Zapatistas are in rural mountains that nobody really cares that much about. If they happened to be sitting on top of a bunch of oil, then the situation would be quite different.
States are the most effective means of solving collective action problems that currently exist. Even the fundamental goal of keeping people safe from other states cannot be achieved in most cases without some degree of centralization. "I can't go up and defend the pass, I have to stay here and protect my farm." That's what decentralization gets you, and the result is that the enemy, who is solving such collective action problems through the mechanism of a state, is (generally) able to subdue each individual with overwhelming force. But it extends beyond defense, "I can't help build that bridge so we can all trade with our neighbors, I have to tend to my crops or I'll starve." While these problems can be solved on a very small scale, on a local level where people know and trust each other, it generally cannot be scaled up to similar situations beyond that.
:-/
Very white take, congratulations.
Only white people have states, yes.
Very disingenuous of you to not recognize white people wielding the state have persecuted indigenous people all over the world.
Yeah and white people have also done that while having teeth so clearly that means we need to knock out all our teeth.
The state has been used to persecute and exploit people because it is an effective means of wielding power, so virtually everyone everywhere uses it, if they can. There's just this silly martyr complex where people would rather lose and get themselves killed in practice, so that they can remain pure in their ideals. I suppose it's useful for winning arguments. Not so much at actually achieving anything.
Show me a state that's never persecuted people.
That's an impossible standard, and doesn't really have anything to do with anything. I'm not interested in impractical moral perfectionism.
Damn I was really hoping you'd prove me wrong.
And I was hoping you'd ground your views in reality.
I guess I was hoping this would be a conversion. But I remain unconvinced and so you're lashing out.
I'm just responding in kind, what I said is no more "lashing out" than what you said.
I'm more than happy to have a conversation, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize and call out impossible standards. You want a state that never persecuted anyone, show me a society where people didn't knock out all their teeth that didn't persecute anyone. Every society has murderers, and every society makes mistakes, and someone who is unjustly punished for a murder they didn't commit could certainly be said to have been persecuted, no? So I don't accept this standard.
Poorly laid bait doesn't invite conversion, you actually got to ease them into the trap with well build points and arguments first.
Is this a bit?