Humans have lived for millions of years…
I was gonna say “I’m out” since modern humans have only existed for ~300k years. However, OP’s likely generally referring to the genus Homo which is older and certainly also works. For example, Homo habilis goes back 3.8M years and walked upright.🚶➡️👍
When you say “dozens of communities exist” that operate with self-governance, what is the size threshold that separates “community” from “state”? And does the term “self-governance” not imply a set of laws at that community level?
what is the size threshold that separates “community” from “state”?
A state is not defined by the number of people “in” it, but rather of the fact that it wields a monopoly of violence over a defined geographical area and has a people to rule over.
And does the term “self-governance” not imply a set of laws at that community level?
That is true, but there being rules don’t mean that there must be a ruler.
With those definitions, a “state” existing is an inevitability.
Getting any group of humans to all agree on a single set of rules at all times is impossible, especially as the community size increases. So there has to be some form of enforcement of the rules, since some people are shit heads who will ignore the rules, and others will disagree on interpretation.
And as community size increases, it’s also an increasingly bad idea to leave enforcement of the rules up to individuals/the community at large. Humans are emotional creatures and will at times respond inappropriately to others who break the rules.
And since humans are made of matter, there’s going to be a defined geographical area where a given community has control.
For the no ruler part, while the internet has made direct democracy possible, there’s still going to need to be a manager of some sort to go about actually implementing the decisions made.
You make implicit assumptions that are hard to grasp and thus criticise. But I’ll try.
With those definitions, a “state” existing is an inevitability
You didn’t really address the definitions.
Getting any group of humans to all agree on a single set of rules at all times is impossible
I don’t know what people you hang out with, but any game of football manages to get people to agree to a single set of rules.
especially as the community size increases.
If the group gets too large, it can naturally split up into two neighbouring groups. I don’t really see why this shouldn’t work, as long as there’s freedom of association (i.e.: I can/should leave if I don’t agree with the terms of a group).
So there has to be some form of enforcement of the rules
I never said that the rules shouldn’t be enforced. Just that the mandate to enforce the rules shouldn’t rely on a set group with a monopoly of violence.
And as community size increases, it’s also an increasingly bad idea to leave enforcement of the rules up to individuals/the community at large.
So, neither individuals, nor the community. Do you want an elite unit of secret police? O.o
Humans are emotional creatures and will at times respond inappropriately to others who break the rules.
So, there will be agreed upon rules and protocols on how to deal with rule violations. Still no requirement for this not-individual-not-communal police force you want.
And since humans are made of matter, there’s going to be a defined geographical area where a given community has control.
… so?
For the no ruler part, while the internet has made direct democracy possible, there’s still going to need to be a manager of some sort to go about actually implementing the decisions made.
A coordinator is different than a ruler. A ruling subject (i.e. a monarch, or any other state apparatus) has sovereign power over it’s subjects (i.e. it’s "people). A coordinator coordinates tasks.
Does that “manager” (which is a weird coice of words, since managers don’t implement - they manage people implementing) necessarily have the power of command and control over other people?
Your worldview is very hierarchy-focused.
Excellent.
