Oddbean

you're gonna have to give specific examples of native societies that operated this way. And don't recite fairytales written by the romanticists of the 1800s lol also, assuming you're right, and assuming they lasted any significant period of time (which none did) "largely" anarchist with "vague" heirarchy isn't the same lol and "free to leave" and live on your own never turned out too well unless you're okay with your sons fucking your daughters (eg eskimos)

Read “the Cheyenne Indians” by Bird Grinell. They were one of the most successful native societies and were most analogous to anarchy in their social structure. This is a fact. Again ignoring the example I provided. Nature is in a pure sense full anarchy but just pretend that’s not the case. Saying “study the universe” is trite, assumptive and completely lacks substance. You’ve not given one detailed example to support your weak claims despite the fact that nature is objectively anarchy in motion. Keep playing a victim and ignoring the information that proves your claims dead wrong. You’re not responding in good faith (muted) and demonstrably intellectually inferior. Keep playing the victim and pretending self determination is your boogie man while the world turns you out like an SF twink 😂😂

i have. that's a great reference. fascinating dude. gbg and his darwinist viewpoint avoid the noble savage problem and somewhere i think he says he had an "interest in watching the progress of the struggle" of the civilization of the savage. but you've obviously read him with an intent to find anarchist patterns lol. you seem to have forgotten aboht the Contrary and the council of 44. not to mention family structure. i submit that individual freedom under law and a centralized government aren't mutually incompatible. if you're talking forests, look at dna and immune systems. look at mutual dependency of everything down to mycelium. i repeat, autonomy is a myth generated from the human god-complex consider for a moment archism is evil. steelman my argument