Oddbean

"No government" is precisely the problem with Palestine. The IDF "administers" the region by doing whatever-the-fuck-they-want with Palestinians who have no rights, no government to protect them, no "real" legal recourses against abuse, torture, murder, theft, and all the other shit we hear about. If anybody thinks government is always the problem and offers no solutions in return , then prove it to me. Go move to Gaza where there is no government. It ought to be the libertarian mecca you've always dreamed of. It would be magical if there were some other deeply indoctrinated system by which people came to the defense of each other when needed, such that this positive function of government were fully distributed among the people and there was no central government. But AFAIK nobody has figured out the magic necessary for a large group of people to have this property. The property that large groups of people have instead is belief in and respect of a hierarchy of power. And according to some psychologists like Jordan Peterson, that hierarchy idea goes all the way back to lobsters, so not easy to replace with a better idea among humans. Maybe A.I. could do it.

The IDF is clearly the state in this description. nostr:nevent1qgsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8gpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uq3kamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwajhxar9wfhxyarr9e3k7mf0qqsf8czewcmdcty2gxnz9zha6y5nfk6xhl459j49qf9tcpx6xu4r6wcl6fsyt

I realize that just saying that the IDF is the State doesn't provide us with any immediate solutions, but at least it is correct and we ought to start from that. In any case I have no knowledge of what the IDF is doing, who is who or how is life in that place, I was just going from your description.

I can see that perspective. This is probably why Amnesty International and B'Tselem see Greater Israel as an aparteid state, because clearly Israel is the only effective state via militant power, but it has two classes of subjects.

Whether a country is an anarchy or a state isn't my point, its that someone will develop a protectorate, whether democratically agreed upon or not, and its better to have a formal mechanism than none at all for the people under this system to influence that institution. A kingdom is total tyrrany, this is the definiton of tyrrany, yet the populace defends the king and the monarchy in word, in heart and deed. A mob controlling a territory is not much more than an informal fiefdom. An anarchy does not guarantee the populace will be dominated by a tyrant, but absent a harmonious, homogenous and highly cohesive society, its highly likely.

But gaza has government. It caled hamas… They has been elected in past and became dictatorship later. For example, police is under Gaza Interior Ministry. Just because you do not have a state, it doesn't mean you do not have government. Making anarchy is tricky because government are like ebola. Highly contagious…

Irrespective of these details and semantics... it is much preferable to have a state that is effective in its ability to protect it's citizens rights from foreigners and from each other. In that point I am agreeing with the OP, or in my words that effective governments provide a valuable service that you can hardly get otherwise.

Usualy worst entity, from which you need protection is a state… Only difference between the hamas controled teritory and regular state is other statets did not give them title of state. Thay have international diplomacy, military, police,… And look what protection they get. They live in dictatorship and foreign government commit genocide because their government attacked civilians so netanyahu get justification so he can kill them and get their land. Government is in principle evil because it has monopoly in teritory. It's not dominant player on market, but real monopoly. Multiple competing security agencies on free market is beter method how to protect itself from mafias including governments.