What you misunderstand is that the same thinking you want to apply now lead to these first cities. They thought that was consensus then as well. We only in hindsight decided that, for example, it is unjust if people are enslaved or not allowed to vote. It still started with communities making up their rules and these grew. It's the same thing as what anarchists are proposing is the way to do it.

You just have to look at any society without police and a legislative to see that they all oppress those who are perceived as weaker. Usually it is kids and women who don't have rights in these communities.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

no they didn't. They built walls to stop the population fleeing into the surrounding hills.

Re police I think you should look into the history of them. Peelan policing as an ideal has some neat ideas but it was still essentially a compromise with aristocracy. It's very interesting.

No police doesn't mean no safety shit. I have arthritic thumbs and my dog is freaking out in storm, Angela Davis writes interesting things about modern cops if curious. a bit usa centric but interesting nonetheless.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

You need to revisit your anthropology. Complex societies like chiefdoms and states arise with the ability to own and accumulate private property which in turn leads to the ability to control resources.

I'm not an anarchist and don't know a lot about it, I just think it is important to discuss the matter on a sound factual basis.