I’ve also had doctor’s try to diagnose me with depression, even after seeing evidence that I had a vitamin deficiency and an autoimmune disorder. I’m told that’s common, particularly for young women. It was that and my research into sci-fi TV that actually led me to the Hathor Legacy – thank you for that site, by the way. It’s been good both in a “keep my sanity” way and in “that’s a great idea I can research” way.

A novel set in an anarchy sounds like a wonderful idea. I’ll make a note of that site so I can check it out periodically.

Very recent research suggests that many NPD kids are very self-critical, which is true of me, but that’s pretty vague. The problem is, it’s very hard to get an NPD diagnosed – they feel like God’s gift, why on earth would they go near a psychiatrist? – so it’s even harder to identify the children of NPDs and put together any sort of decent study group.

As for anarchy, I’ve been working on a novel which will explore my vision much more clearly than I can describe it in essay form. If I ever get time to do it, I’m posting it online at http://nothingtodefend.com. Sadly, it’s been three years, and I still haven’t found the time, and my obligations seem to be replicating on their own with no say-so from me these days. But if I ever get to write the damn thing, it might help.

*sighs* I did mention I don’t get to talk alternative politics very often, and I’m sure it’s showing:) I’ll ask you to take it on faith that I wasn’t trying to create a straw man or even necessarily to disprove your ideas. I have several friends who espouse anarchy, but I’ve never seen a form quite like what you’ve described, and trying to picture it has been . . . difficult, because it bears so little resemblance to anything else. I’m sorry to have put pressure on you – I was pleasantly surprised at how prompt your responses have been. I don’t get answers from my thesis advisor this fast, sadly.

I look forward to the article, if and when you write it, and hopefully I’ll understand better.

As I understand you, you feel the ideal would be a nomadic system, either hunter/gatherer or pastoralist (wait, no domestication of animals, right?), in which material goods are kept to a minimum and knowledge is passed down orally, supported by a high infant mortality rate and the other usual suspects.

No, no, and NO. As I’ve explained twice, to counter one point you made (escaping natural disaster through technological advancements), I brought up relocating as an alternative. used the term “nomadic” in the description, and you took that phrase like a pit bull and ran with it and have pretty much been arguing against things I never said throughout the thread.

One last time: AT NO POINT DID I SAY MY ANARCHY WOULD ENTAIL A NOMADIC SYSTEM. See, here’s where I cleared it up the first time:

Let me clarify that I’m not advocating a return to nomadic or hunter-gatherer society. You asked how people would deal with inhospitable living conditions, and I offered the nomadic solution as one that’s tried and true – it’s what any other species would do.

And yet you just keep coming back to this and arguing against things I never said.

No hard feelings, but this is exhausting and I’m very pressed for time. I’m drafting in my head an article about how anarchy could eradicate privilege, so maybe if my schedule lets up and I post it, that will answer some of your questions. Until then, you may have the last word if you want it.

(May I ask, what is NPD? Google is utterly useless for acronyms.)

As I understand you, you feel the ideal would be a nomadic system, either hunter/gatherer or pastoralist (wait, no domestication of animals, right?), in which material goods are kept to a minimum and knowledge is passed down orally, supported by a high infant mortality rate and the other usual suspects.

What rules of inheritance?

You’ve said that leaders would be selected on the basis of strength and charisma. How does the evidence suggest the subordinates will behave? If they are unwilling to defend themselves from an abuse now, why will they defend themselves against an abuse then, particularly assuming that the leader is stronger, or more able to convince others of his correctness?

How will violations of the society’s mores be judged – according to ancient precepts and moral codes, the wisdom of the elders, strength (as in old England), voting (as the Athenians did)?

Assuming that the use of tools is supposed to equalize conflicts, what weapons, and who will make them? Knives and staffs don’t do much for equalization, and metal work is mostly limited to post-nomadic societies, iirc.

What will prevent them from domesticating animals again? (Particularly as there is some evidence that domestication was an accident, based on dogs and cats following humans around.) For that matter, will they be prohibited from eating animals, or just domesticating them?

If the intent is that those who are unhappy will move off to another tribe, how would you prevent xenophobia (literally the fear of strangers)? How will they deal with unequal resources? Will there be trade (it existed in neolithic times for art and tools, so presumably)? How will trade be handled? If others have desirable resources, why will they not conquer each other? What rules will be created to deal with warfare – the usual “kill the leaders, offer a low status position to likely men and boys, and marry or concubine women and girls”; the extreme “kill them all, or force them into the desert/tundra/rocky shoals”; or something else?

What about science, religion, and art? What of each will be passed on, and by what means? What about culture and language? There are so many of each, and they vary by so much – will those be eliminated first (and by what means)? If not, how will those nomads speak and deal with each other?

Biological evidence? I assume you’re talking evolutionary biology? I consider that a pseudo-science and have explained my position on that issue on Hathor: you absolutely cannot separate biology from culture and events to determine what is hardwired behavior and what is fluid. We are being accultured every second we’re not in a state of complete sensory deprivation – if such is even possible.

As for history, I’m not aware of any anarchy in history that had the parameters I envision for it.

My arguments are all centered on human psychology, which is a soft science, but not one that rests on a complete fallacy. There is a certain evident logic to how brains work – so much so that when my father was diagnosed with NPD, the textbook descriptions I read about NPDs and the mothers who often make them NPDs could have been a specific, informed description of my father and his mother. That’s how predictable the human mind really is, and I find understanding psychology an uncanny predictor of what people will do. And from studying culture and history, it’s not difficult to extrapolate which percentages of people will react in which way, and make a good guess which way the herd will go in the end.

That said – you say anarchy erases the privilege that government enjoys over its people, and I object to that phrasing. It’s “the evil that men do” not “the evil that governments do”. Anarchy may erase the privilege of governments, but I haven’t seen anything that would convince me that it would eradicate privilege as a whole, nor do I see any reason why the simple elimination of government would “force people to think for themselves” and result in the elimination of privilege – it didn’t do it in the Old West, in the tribes of Mongolia, or in our close cousins, the monkeys. Anarchy, in every real example I have ever heard of, leads to “might makes right”. And I think, if you had an actual example where it didn’t, you would have brought it up. Why don’t *you* start “seeing reality for what it is”?

I listened. I just don’t agree. I’m very sorry, as I said before, to have (apparently) wasted your time and for the unwitting insult earlier. I’m perfectly willing to leave this here, although, should you see historical or biological evidence that would verify your claims, or a work on a similar theme, I would be pleased if you thought to forward the reference.

As I said above: the system is not functioning imperfectly, it’s keeping down exactly who it means to keep down, and bolstering the exact people it means to bolster, all under a guide of “liberty for all” that keeps people thinking, “Well, the bad things happening aren’t the fault of government. It has such great intentions!”

Anarchy ERASES the privilege that government enjoys over its people. The first, best and last improvement anarchy would make it to force people to think for themselves. Stop taking the government’s word and start seeing reality for what it is.

I’m not going to say anymore, because it feels like you’re not listening anyway, and my time is very precious to me.

I believe this happens routinely in the system we have. Particularly, in your example, if the accused is a man of color. Again, we seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion on which we must agree to disagree: you seem to think the system we have functions imperfectly. I think it’s functioning exactly as it was intended – keeping the vast majority of people servile to a very small and lucky minority, regardless of the talent that’s getting wasted in the process and the foolishness that’s being given run of the place.

I want to return to this briefly:

Humans have a distinct tendency to be over-impressed by confidence and the easy answer, even the confidently wrong. Or confidently evil.

I don’t accept that this is nature. I believe it’s nurture. Centuries of keeping that majority servile to the minority has caused people to internalize the abuse like an emotionally scarred child who rationalizes she must deserve the bullying she receives. “Life keeps thwarting me – I must suck. Life keeps working for that guy over there – he must be awesome.” And you know why assholes tend to win? Because if you don’t have any moral boundaries, you’re very free to do whatever it takes to get what you want. If you’re concerned with playing fair, that can slow you down a bit. So combine the two – rationalizing your own oppression and the fact that nasty people make progress more quickly – and you get people who think the “confidently evil” guy is a leader.

I’m not sure how long it would take for people to grasp what real leadership is, but I believe they will figure it out. I base this partly on my own experience of people turning to me for leadership, when I’m not only not seeking it, but don’t even want it. I never understood why people expected me to take charge whenever there was a gap in leadership – I just wanted to be a loner – but a few years ago, I started accepting the role of leader in certain areas, and the results were pretty decent. People seemed to like working with me in that capacity. I’ve talked to a LOT of other people who’ve had similar experiences. So you know, somewhere down in the lizard brain, I think we actually DO know what makes a good leader, and if we dump the social programming, we would do a much better job at choosing leaders.