[Keith]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but Brutha reminded me in another thread that I owe him some responses. Like I said last time, I still think it's more productive if everyone looks for ways to make it work rather than just reasons it won't.

Originally Posted by Brutha

We are talking about a population in which there are enough very intelligent, conscious and aware people available for government functions that are able to achieve win-wins.
If you think those conscious and aware people aren't capable of making win-wins your whole argument is dead.

It's a matter of communication flow. A network of people addressing an issue are always going to come to a better consensus than a central authority operating on necessarily limited information.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You suppose a society where they are conscious and aware people. Why should a government of those people act against the wishes of the people?

I suppose a society composed predominantly of conscious and aware people, yes. The power of government is likely to attract the least conscious members of that society, but assuming that doesn't happen, central control is still an inferior decision making approach for the reasons noted above.

No single human being is qualified to understand and respond to issues affecting large groups of individuals.

Originally Posted by Brutha

How do those people make the decision to come together? Who organises it?

Wouldn't it be more efficient if someone in City A and someone in City B had the job to organise those things. (That job is classically called mayor)

Through consensus reaching procedures. This is a new form of decision-making, just as diplomacy once was. Some of the techniques can be seen in the way Wikipedia is managed.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Let take a large-scale example, genetic manipulated plants.
The benefits of having better plants that have more vitamins and need fewer growing time mean that someone will want to do this in your society. Those scientists who want to do this will thing that the benefits are greater than they are in reality and that the risk aren't as big as they are because the belief in the idea of genetic manipulated plants.

Because other people fear that the risk genetic manipulated plants is greater than the benefits it provides.
How does your society decides the issue? What process is used to make that decision?

There are a lot of similar question where there is a risk for the whole society but a big gain for the one who does it.

I don't think that the one who grows the genetic manipulated plants is the best to ensure that the risk is balanced against the gain.
It is better when there is a government who decides (by some progress) what is appropriate.

The society decides the issue by those effected getting together to discuss the situation. I don't know what outcome they would reach - it's probably better than anything I can think of. Possibly there would be agreement that the scientists could work on it if they did so in an isolated area with no chance of cross-contamination. There'd presumably also be recognition of the need to label the products accordingly. The scientists should have no problem with these conditions.

Originally Posted by Brutha

If this spectacular group of problem solvers come together and build a force that can combat the aggressor they form a state in the process of doing so.
Maybe they win, but Anarchy is over anyway. That like "Cutting basic human rights to defend them" it doesn't work on a principle reason.

The other problem is that the aggressor can prepare for it and gather ressources. When he declares war their isn't much time anymore to build a defense.
But if you build your defense before their is aggresson that exactly building a state.

It is a concern. Some societies with superior levels of peace and happiness have historically become prey to more militant societies. I don't have the answer to this one.

Interestingly enough, conquering a people has historically also often spread their culture. The Greeks invented democracy and were then conquered by the Romans. But the Romans ended up absorbing a lot of the Greek culture, and the advanced Greek culture continued and spread in that way. Similarly, global interest in Tibetan culture spiked dramatically since China drew attention to it by conquering the nation.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Being I King could be kind of fun, so even when you are happy you may want to become one.

I don't buy this. I can't believe that a conscious, aware person would undertake military action and kill hundreds of people because "being King could be kind of fun".

And I don't believe a conscious, aware person would follow someone who wanted to. There's a reason soldiers have to undergo extensive training to prepare them to kill another human being.

Originally Posted by Brutha

There aren't only individual to individual relationships.
There are also group to group relationships.

I believe that groups would generally be less clear-cut in an anarchy. It would be more a matter of interpersonal networks than "the blue team vs the red team".