Tell me what exactly would be wrong with an Anarchonist society...

Tell me what exactly would be wrong with an Anarchonist society? What purpose does a ruling class really serve when the People naturally run like clockwork? Economics is an aspect of the law of the land that is already in effect without human intervention, is it not? It seems to me that we would benefit as a planet to at least try this route out. Peacekeepers can still exist. Corporations can still exist. But if we had a unifying culture based off of love rather than fear what could go wrong?

>Tell me what exactly would be wrong with an Anarchonist society?

It logicially devolves into authoritarianism due to defeat in detail from a orgiansed group.

Or its outright conquered from an outside force.

The problem with an anachronistic society is the people that are going to be in charge.

If the whole world was on board with it and we all actively protected each other there would be no force to overcome it?

The only way the whole world gets on board is though authoritarianism.

The concept is a non starter. Just like Communism.

Nothing, Indonesian Borneo has no laws, no law enforcement and the place is a paradise. Before the globalist got involved you could even sex beautiful orangutans shaved as dressed as girls and they loved it.

True. So what if the Authority was a religion rather than a physical entity? Could that not work?

>Indonesian Borneo

Is controlled by Indonesia, a republic.

At first I thought the OP said Anachronistic society, and I agreed that I wished to live free from the constraints of time.

Regions are inherently physical, they deal with people and places.

>Anarchonist society

See, you have already made your first mistake. A society cannot exist if its anarchy. Anarchy means barbarism at best.

No, it's joint shared by the Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak, Indonesian Kalimantan and the tiny nation of Brunei. It really is a paradise in anarchy.

How? We are such an advanced species. Can we not use our brains to all agreed that we should work together in peace and harmony? Why is that such a far-fetched thing for at the very least posterity to achieve?

Did you mistake what I said? I meant an internal and globally shared belief system not a region

No, certain segments of the island of borneo are administered by different governments, but its still administered.

Indonesian Borneo is controlled by Indonesia.

>I meant an internal and globally shared belief system

Impossible to implement without authoritarianism.

For example, i would reject this belief, no matter what amount of evidence or rhetoric is given to me. What do?

Being an "advanced species" has little meaning. The human race is a competitive race. If anarchy were ever to happen, different groups would just immediately form and fight for power, because we are ambitious, and strive for being, as they would say in the animal kingdom: the alpha male.
Working together in "peace and harmony" is a folly dream you only have because you don't understand human nature. The only reason we have stable societies today, is because there are defined rules that those at the top has set for us. If those at the top and their rules were removed, new people with new rules would just take their place.

Then you are excluded from civilization by consensus since you would be objectively evil. Non aggression is a part of natural law so we would exclude you unless you used violence in which case we would use force to eliminate you from paradise for everyone's sake

Who would exclude you? Who has the power to do so? Who defines evil?

>Non aggression is a part of natural law
Say that to the animal kingdom. Violence and killing is the norm.

I have no idea what an anarchonist society is so I couldn't tell you.
If you meant anarchist then the problem is the inevitable fall into totalitarianism, because the society lacks mechanisms to prevent warlords.
Also
>you must be 18+ to post on this board

But what if we all agreed to transcend our animal instincts? Unique to our species is the capacity to think and reject thoughts and emotions. Admittedly this would mean a hyperevolution of general maturity and consciousness but that doesn't mean it is wrong or impossible. If the whole population was taught natural law and their capacities as thinking and feeling creatures how could it not be sustainable? We have the power to do either good or evil. Evil would be ambition destructive to others.

Then it's not an anarchy, it's theistic autocracy/oligarchy depending on the organization of the religion

That's a pessimistic view on our species that I know we are conditioned to believe. This way of thinking can only perpetuate chaos. We are more than animals. Animals do not understand quantum physics and write symphonies. Ascended beings (humans) do that

Also society as a whole would not support you because you clearly would not play a part in said society. No different than becoming a bum or a drug addict. Economics already has the answer to this

And how do you propose to get everyone to agree on anything?
For fuck sake we can't even get everyone to agree that the world is round

>Non aggression is a part of natural law so we would exclude you unless you used violence in which case we would use force to eliminate you from paradise for everyone's sake.

Lets assume its feasible to get everyone in an anarchy to agree...

Ok, so me and my band of merry faggots decide that we build our own, competitive civilization, say a military republic.

Using the NAP (as apart of natuarl law) i will begin to culturally subvert certain segments of your population, namly your naturally rebellious youth. Being that they are chooseing such actions as apart of free will, you cannot attack me or else you would violate your delicious NAP.

Then, i would seek out, then arm malcontents in your civilization. Due to the NAP, i am still unable to be attacked because i am merely selling products.

Once i reach a technological parity (which would be easy to do via free market sales of anything i want from your civilization), i would attack yours.

Being that my military has an actual hiarchy that has to follow orders with a clear subordinate/leader follow though, i absolutely trounce your military (if you could muster it) due to psyops that will see your troops break due to no actual need to die for their country.

All it takes is one guy to kill your entire concept. One pissed off guy.

The only way to remove the guy is to kill him, and if you do you are violating the basic premise of your concept.

I say again, its a non starter, even assumeing some sort of minor hivemind.

In an anarchist society society doesn't support you anyway. And again, how would you get everybody to agree?

>But what if we all agree
And just how would you make everyone agree, with nice sounding words and rhetoric?

>Unique to our species is the capacity to think and reject thoughts and emotions
And i reject your thoughts on this subject and the emotions you base them on. What now?

>If the whole population was taught
Who has the authority to decide what is taught? If its an anarchistic society, why would you have to teach/preach people on how to behave?

>Evil would be ambition destructive to others.
Who decides that this is considered an evil act? Again look at the animal kingdom, killing is part of nature. In your ideal anarchist world, how can you decide that "destructive ambitions" is evil?

>Admittedly this would mean a hyperevolution of general maturity and consciousness
Pretty words, little meaning.

It's simple. Meme magic can open people's minds. By asking this question you admit that what I propose is logical, would work, and has always been there in our minds whether we know it or not. We need a war on base consciousness through positive memetics. Even if it doesn't happen now or 50 years from now it will spread like a virus and ultimately free our children. But we need to start NOW

See

I completely reject memes.

What now.

>Also society as a whole would not support you
I though it was an anarchist society? Who are you to lecture me on how to behave?

>because you clearly would not play a part in said society
But an anarchist society means there are no leaders. How can you decide what part people are to play in this utopia?

Anything violent is evil. All violence is some form of theft. It is much simpler than you believe. As long as you don't harm others you are fine. There is a black and white to violence. Moral relativism is a (((trick)))

Again, who has the authority to decide this?

NAP is societal law, not natural law.

Natural law is the law of the jungle. Might makes right.

Anarchists are retarded because they presuppose societal organization to justify a lack of societal organization.

Time to stop being a child.

This vision is anarchist in the sense that there is no physical authority. Our conscience is our authority and we all rule ourselves. There will be tyrants who use their sovereignty for evil but they simply will not be able to thrive in an aware society. It absolutely is order. The difference is that there is no unnecessary external government(which means "mind-ruling" btw) there to play with the lives of innocents

the entire human race: the majority. If the majority proclaims its legitimacy there will be no stopping it

I don't think you understand how memetics works

Also what about my post in any way agrees with the possibility of your suggestion? You can never get 100% consensus, not with voluntary participation. This is why all societies have some form of enforcement(military, police).
What you imagine is just flat impossible, and instead of defending your ideas you just deny the existence of flaws

>NAP is societal law, not natural law.

[no spoilers] i know, i was mocking him.

Anarchist try to impose morals without a framework to impose it, in short.

Then you are one of the rejects and you will slowly become marginalized over time. Goodness prevails. The world is freed. The end.

A group gets too big defeats all others and stabilishes a government, its a natural evolution.
Stop huffing that blue pill faggot.

So rules are decided democraticly? Then it's not anarchy it's a democracy

>There will be tyrants who use their sovereignty for evil but they simply will not be able to thrive in an aware society

Sure there will be.

>TFW you create weaponized anthrax in a lab and sell it to people but you cant be attacked or punished because you are a mere salesman selling a product thus not in violation of the NAP

see

Who will enforce the will of the majority if there is no government or institution who has any power?

>Goodness prevails

Oh boy. It will be painful for you when you finish school and get out into the real world.

Economics and peacekeepers.

Only because we live in an opposite world where evil is rigged to prevail

Who gives the peacekeepers authority?

Who will employ them?

Everyone who need a their protection. The followers of the religion of peace.
The free market.

>Everyone who need a their protection.

So if i am not directly employing them i can completely ignore them?

You are too naive. This will never happen.