Druidus said:
I can echo Mr. Emu's sentiments, but I reason to them differently.
First, even in ancient nomadic tribes, and whatnot, they do have more than the minimal rules and regulations. While you dislike the term "savage," and understandably so, what you have echoed is the "Noble Savage" theory espoused by political philosophers in Europe with no way to even study first hand information on stone-age tribes, such as Jean-Jaques Rouseau. The theory of the Noble Savage has never been true IMO.
For instance, there is a tribe in South America that has a rigid structure that it applies to women, ritualized warfare, and so on. Most primitive tribes have warfare, and they do ritualize it. I believe the same may be said about social roles. We have unearthed prehistoric burians that strongly indicate a patriarchial society. All of these traits, though, contradict anarchism. There is very little evidence to say that humanity has been anarchic most of our history.
I think this fact is inevitable. We live in a world with a scarcity of resources. Without planning and care, there just isn't enough to go around. Distribution, then, is a key part of life and death. Government is simply a means of expressing that. In older societies, we had to worry about migrating herds or where berries would gather, and moved in tribes in which a large one could be a few dozen people. The rules of society and resource management evolved accordingly...and they did have rules on this.
Gradually, city-states evolved. Each managed their own material needs independantly (at first). However, when tragedies struck or there was a shortage, they would lash out at their neighbors. Of course, they would also lash out at their neighbors in order to get more material comfort for themselves (All emperors had gaining material wealth as part of their goals...and this is partially so that they have a bigger and ever bigger cushion).
The city-states, though, were inadaquate to the task compared to nation-states or empires. These managed resources better, and more efficiently for the benefit of their rulers, but it also benefited their citizens, because plenty came their way with it which was more abundant than they had had before. Since these states had greater man-power and resources, it is quite natural the city states would be subsumed or conquered by them.
We can see the ever-increasing spiral of resource management if we just look out our doors. Businesses always seek to expand themselves, for the safety of their business. So, when they can, they hire more workers. These workers in their turn yield more products, and bring their employers more revenue, which they use to expand themselves if they can. Since employers are naturally greedy (in fact, they are required to be to a degree simply on account of their role), this cycle is the norm.
A second factor is mutual protection. People band together and form rules in order to protect themselves. I don't think we need to theorize about how a thief, even in the most primitive communities, would be ostracized and cast out. The community bonds together and protects themselves against another person they consider a threat.
Now, when we couple the social response to a common threat and the need for better resource management, then we find cause behind gangs, groups of vigilantes, imperial armies (ones that invade), and so on. All of these are natural products of those needs and desires. However, these are drastically helped by the third element I'll discuss.
Here, I mention charisma and a pack mentality. People individually are nice and kind more often than not, but people as groups may be quite viscious. We have a basic desire to rally in groups...and this always tends to be behind a common leader. This often isn't nice. This leader tends to assert his authority, and the people following him extend it. In most cases, the damage such a man can do is limited by stronger powers over him that oppress him and thwart his desires. They will seize control of other people specifically to advance themselves until they are checked by an outside force.
Granted, anarchy is supposed to avoid this type of situation, but all of us have been in a situation where we have many people who don't know each other thrown together. Very quickly, someone asserts himself as leader of the group. If more than one person seeks to be dominant, there is conflict, and we either see that person ostracized, or we see their group forced into submission by other people. This phenomena is exceedingly common, and as I've stated, we've all seen it. Anarchy must find a solution for this beyond "But if the people are unwilling..." to avoid it because people are almost always willing. There must be something to change them, and make a long-lasting change. Anarchy hasn't supplied that.
All these factors working together guarantee the rise of some kind of government. Heck, even a small business or a gang is acting as a government in many respects. Wherever we see government, we really see a government governing weaker governments governing...and so on. We set these up by requirement of our enviroment, by our own social tendencies, and because it's easier. Frankly, this is an argument from human nature, and it doesn't presume very much.
Anarchy also suffers from weaknesses outside of the neccessary rise of government. It cannot really make systematic responses. It's hard enough to do that when we have governments (because not only do citizens still break the law, but the governments are like their citizens). In the U.S., the Oogoollalla Aquifer is running out. When it does, a large portion of the U.S. won't have water. It's difficult to get people to act in government, and far harder to get individuals to act. We have a chance to prepare with governments and corporations, but with anarchy...a day would simply come suddenly where people would stop receiving water, and they would migrate
en masse to other areas, cause shortages, and so on. We need government to address the situation.
Another is the enviromental crisis. Anarchy can't really enforce the neccessary regulations in this matter. We already know that corporations and individuals won't do what is neccessery without outside coercion. That's why the outside coercion is occuring in the matter, and even then, we have governments that refuse sensible regulations (mine for instance), and individuals that ignore government laws.
The "Now" is always stronger than the "Maybe Tomorrow" for people. Thus, anarchy requires us to rely on something we know, from everyday experience, defies the way humans behave. They are concerned with the here and now, not the future more often than not. An anarchic society will not be able to respond to various crisis when they are on the horizen, and we are making plenty.
So, I close by saying the rise in government is impossible and anarchy itself is unworkable with our global problems.
.
