Yes, actually it's true. I work in international trade and right there already no recourse in case of need for formal conflict resolution methods, so we all just operate under the principle of caution and, if you someone fucks you over, perhaps peer pressure mechanisms (denouncing them on public forums and shaming them). 

 There will always be fucking over. What matters is how many entities that matter find out and choose their futures and perhaps retaliations based on that knowledge. When fucking someone over more reliably leads to fucking oneself over on a relevant time frame, then the incentive to play nice is stabilised. It's a game theory thing. Mutualism is a naturally occurring phenomenon stabilised by shared interests in prosperity  

 Reputation, the threat of being denied future dealings, and multi-sig or some other form of bitcoin insurance contract should make it easier to deal with (or avoid) untrustworthy people. 

 The term anarchy has been broken from loose usage suffering redefinition to 'chaotic' with connotations of disorder, violence and decay
Decentralised as a term is functionally descriptive, apolitical and underwrites the philosophy of decentralism. 
Decentralism can be organically promoted as a public good to any audience. 
The processes of nature are decentralised, as is evolution. 
The digital revolution has put the power to form decentralised collectives with economic capabilities in our an pockets. To grow successfully it must grow amid the competition of government corruption by offering new capabilities for uncensored organising of voting blocks and candidature in local election. More apps and integrations focussed on direct democracy..
Democracy was originally intended to decentralised power to mass interest by representation. It needs rebuilding so that it can't be bought
Decentralisms first goal is true consent democracy, that allows further decentralisation.
  

 unipolar hegemony and the globalist agenda is still alive and well. Not for long. 

 Why does my reply have a content warning!? 

 That's why we need secession until the individual level  

 I was literally thinking about law-str earlier today. The substantive side must be left up to each community, but we could have protocol level support for procedural stuff: case listings, summons and subpeonas, directions hearings, evidence submission, judgements. That's still "opinionated", but can be made compatible with just about any extant or historical legal system. 

 Dunbar's number. 

 Democracy only works in a decentralized, local manner. At the federal level it always leads to corruption and totalitanism. 

 I don't think it even works at a local level. 

 the fiat incentives are all wrong. 

 Fuck voting for anything. Crowd funding some idea might be good, but "democracy" always ends up being stupid & evil. 

 So what's the alternative? Letting a king make all te decisions? 

 Letting individuals make them. The amount of collective decision making required to live in peace, harmony and order is a lot smaller that your brain has been trained to believe since you were a little child. 

 All organizations & "decision makers" should be voluntarily funded. You either support what people do with your own earnings or you don't.

Voting implies that you can be forced to fund something you don't support.

The world will be a better place when everyone realizes that all forms of forced funding are criminal. 

 So you're saying we shoudl privatize everything? (Not criticising, just trying to understand...)

So we'd have a private military, and people would fund it if they felt it was worthwhile (for example)?

Or with electric vehicles, no government rebates or funding to add infrastructure, just funded if people buy the cars? 

 Yes, our "defense" organizations would not cost trillions & be used to attack & overthrow countries & install dollar friendly disctatorships if not for forced funding. Voluntary funding would likely produce actual domestic defense & nothing more.

Electric vehicles & "green energy" are actually horrible for the environment & would not be a problem without force funded subsidies. 

 Now I do agree with you...yet (playing devil's advocate for both or us) if we make defense spending a voluntary thing, then in times of peace the funding would likely be low, and then when you need the military (say you were attacked) you likely would be caught without sufficient funding...and no time to build up (even if you could quickly raise the funds).

Not defending the military waste (at all) yet I see in this example something that would need proactive funding. Maybe there are other (better?) examples, but I do think there should be some limited central services...

I do struggle with this though, as I think (almost exclusively) politicians are corrupt, and the tax system is being abused...but I'm not sure we can do away with it all completely.... 

 I think the amount of people who like to collect guns & play war games, with basically all govt restrictions on weapons ownership removed, would probably serve as one of the greatest deterrants ever. Red necks are currently viewed as a serious threat to our govt despite being seriously crippled by regulations on what they are allowed to own & our govt basically being the most heavily armed govt in the history of the world.

I think drone tech & open source Ai tools & cryptography are really only going to make the economics better for individuals & defense vs larger institutions & offensive measures in the long run. 

 Exactly this. You would not try to overthrow a country where its citizenry is heavily armed, because they will defend themselves. Meanwhile, the US military does not even exist for defense, it is a purely offensive force. And a disarmed citizenry with a centralized power center is a relatively easy target - you just have to take out or subvert the leadership. 

 The strategy that Tactical Civics is implementing is a step in that correct direction and it has a real chance to be extremely effective:

tacticalcivics.com

https://rumble.com/c/DarleneDowning

https://americaagain.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The-Great-We-Set-Audiobook.mp3 

 I vote with my money and feet. 

 There have always, and I mean ever since people began to settle down in the Neolithic, polities with a strong tendency to conquer, subjugate and centralize larges tracts of territories, cities, rural areas and people. That is, centralization of power over resources.

We call them "empires" when we talk about the Ancient historical period, although in the Middle Ages there were empires too, archetypically, France. But medieval feudal kingdoms and other sovereign entities were pretty much the exact same thing, just smaller and perhaps sometimes nominally subject to an Empire. The Hanseatic League, the German and Italian mosaic of cities and principalities and other similar entities had to coexist and survive against these aggregating, centralizing polities all along their existence, until they finally were annexed too. 

And we're just talking about Europe. If you look at the Indian world, in the subcontinent and in SE Asia, or the Chinese sphere of influence in NE Asia, it was as centralized or more.

The conventional definition of "nation-state" is extremely weak and I have never bought it. Most often, it's something along the lines of "and unlike in the medieval era, now the people identified with the 'country' instead of their village", which is simply false as a universal claim.

The myth that "nations" appear only by magic when a bunch of monarchs put their signature on the treaties that concluded the Peace of Westphalia in the 17th century, and that those "nations" are identical to the States that happen to exist as a consequence, has no substance to it. And saying that it was an even later development, from the 19th century or even the aftermath of WW1 with the Wilsonian "principle of self-determination", even less.

More than 2000 years ago we already had Romans, and civil wars were fought over the right to receive full Roman citizenship by all its inhabitants. The English before Hastings were already fully aware of their national struggle to unify the territory, in opposition to both the different Celtic nations and the Norse. The Dutch, Portuguese and Catalan revolts against the Castilian-led Spanish Habsburg Empire were transparently national in nature.

The "modern nation-state" myth is simply a justification that the most recent existing states, extremely centralized due to modern technology and development, have constructed for themselves and the status quo they want to uphold. That's all. There is no objective difference with the "previous" order.