Do you think trump is a good president?

@basilfawlty89 Would you rather a king instead?

@Allelse no, no king, no president, no parliament. Direct democracy, grassroots consensus decision making.

You must live in the magical land of the pixies.

@Allelse No, it's called Anarchism. It worked fine in revolutionary Catalonia. Educate yourself.

@basilfawlty89 No it didn't work fine. Anarchism is a pipe dream, it doesn't work with our species we're far too conniving for that. You take away law, order and political structure then what happens is the biggest thug about gets in, kills anyone he doesn't like the look of and makes himself boss. Democracy's not perfect but its the best we're going to get I'm afraid.

@Allelse that's not what anarchism is, anarchism has order and rules, it means no leaders. Maybe learn what you're arguing against? In our earliest ages we were stateless, I can link you to factual information on this

@basilfawlty89 Oh I see you're one of those 'No!!! This is what true 'Anarchism' is or NO!!! They got it all wrong! True Communism is.....". And so on. Look it wouldn't work, our species will always revert to hierarchy, if it were otherwise then it would be, society wouldn't need to be broken down and reset if it were able to manage itself as a society without leaders. Frankly, being a fellow who ends up in leadership roles I can say whole heartily I enjoy friendship with a few people and largely being left alone, but one way or another I always end up looking after a band of mismatched people, looking for kindness acceptance and above all some for of assurance of protection. They know that I will always be there for them and people like that.

@Allelse No, I go by the actual definition of Anarchism. No one ever claimed there are rules in Anarchism, it's direct democracy. Maybe actually read Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin?

Here's where you're wrong:

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=560
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23631462-700-the-real-roots-of-early-city-states-may-rip-up-the-textbooks/

I know you like the idea of being in charge, but we don't need people in charge. People can rule their own lives, and things which affect people as a group can be decided as a group.

Urghhhhh! Well I tried. Maybe one day you'll get it.

As for being in charge, I've never had to like or dislike the idea, once I'm in the position I'm in it and it doesn't matter whether I like it or not; other people's needs come first.

@Allelse Your arrogance is astounding, I just linked you info showing stateless civs

Yeah one article in new scientist doesnt mean dick agaisnt the overwhelming evidence of human nature; and because of that evidence I dont believe for a moment that those early city states were some 'glory glory' utopian example of anarchism. They'd have been brutal as feck, eye for an eye, big thug in charge city states always about one mistunderstanding away from killing one and other.

@Allelse And your citation for this assertion is? Human nature changes, we are a social species, cooperation is what creates civilization. We are more interdependent on one another than ever before

Citations of my assertion? Well on a 'Time to create a utopian society through philosophy!' Being a disaster we have - Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Che Guevera to name a few. Many of who were not only blood thirsty tyrants, but so inept that the desth tolls under their reign are so high due to doing things as stupid as say, taking farmland off of people who knew how to farm it, throwing them in jail and putting it under the control of people who didnt have a damn clue.

Now!!! That idiotic article rambled on about people 'coming together' in agricultural harmony. Hmmmmmm! Now! Lets look at the human societies which are closest to the early days eh? To get an idea of human nature.

Native Americans. Well there's enough about their 'practises'. Espescially the Apache and the Cumanche, make sure to pay attention to them oh and the Ute, they were pretty nasty too.

Then we have your new guinea lads, and your Bornea natives which were always tearing each other a new one, not to mention the ritual pedophilia and cannibalism.

Oh and the Australian aboriginals were a savage lot and they're as close to cavemen as you can get. Proving that stone age up to hunter gatherer and bit further we're still a brutal lot.

Now! The Aztecs were one of your powerful city state types, as were the Mayans, and well? They were a nasty bunch.

Alright, the Sumerians and the ancient Egyptians were not a bad lot, they had law courts and laws and such, which could still be pretty brutal. I mean your Babylonians had a real eye for an eye thing going in their laws.

And yet regardless of all of that! We're expected to believe from that article that during some small time of agricultural development between when we were hunter garherers and when we formed into city states, that it was some magical, peaceful time of human compassion and cooperstion?

Hah! I doubt it.

And to cite some nasty examples of humans following the biggest thugs, during time of termoil causing unification behind them?

Muhammed
Vlad the Impaler
Mao
Phillip of Macedon
Ghengis Khan
Atilla the Hun
Napoleon
Ivan the tertible
Tamerlane
Stalin
Sulla
Not to mention Julius Caesar and that nephew of his, just to name a few. Oh and Trump. A big loud mouth thug and look how they cheer for him

Hah! Oh i dont deny that at this moment we're at our best behaved, atleast in the west but that's only for as long as the west stays ontop.