That’s a fuckload of words that barely come close to answering the question of “what in this new system of yours protects against rape gangs”?

Maybe drop your edgy hate-fetish and answer the question instead of attacking other ideas? Because this is the closest you came and it’s handwavey as fuck.

Anarchy is not the lack of government, it’s horizontal governance. Hierarchy is not necessary for community policing or restorative justice.

Listing three Adjectice Noun keywords works just fine as for signaling to others who agree with your abstract goals that you can get a beer together, but does fuck all to convince anyone to join or respect your cause.

I care about boys and girls not getting gang-raped, and such rape-gangs being effectively punsihed so they stop being such and others are incentivized not to follow their lead. Extant states today attempt this through the state monopoly on proactice violence and the various political and legal systems which determine when such violence may be used.

You’re suggesting eliminating “the state”, meaning the thing that results from said political activity and through its various judicial systems does the aforementioned proactice violence. While I agree that this system is imperfect, I am not at all convincded that whatever you are suggesting would be even at least as just because you keep wasting your words on arguing how the current system is bad.

Just because the current system is bad doesn’t mean some other system wouldn’t be worse.

Modern states suspend the rights of individuals to lifer or liberty as a punishment for breaking a rule. Rules like “don’t rape people”.

At least in theory, you can move to another nation or campaign for better treatment in essentially all modern states, exempting a small group of pariah states that still mostly don’t rape people as punishment.

Not a single person I’ve seen has so much as suggested any mechanism whatsoever that would keep “self organizing collectives” from becoming fetit pools of bigotry and violence. We know that will happen because such groups arise in every nation already, but their impact is curbed specifically by the power of the state.

“Get rid of the government and we’ll all do the right thing” is libertarian bullshit to cover their glee at taking things away from others. If you aren’t a pro-rape libertarian, figure out how your proposed system would protect the vulnerable at least as well as modern states do.

What stops a self-organizing collective from becoming racist, sexist, transohobic, and pro-rape?

I doubt you or I or anyone else here would join such a collective, but what would be our recourse when one forms and rapes my son or lynches your daughter?

Modern states at least have the benefit of a basic theory that they cannot simply un-person people who live within their borders. I dont see what the ewuivalenf mechabism would be to encourage a self-organized collective from doing so.

(Apology accepted. Sorry if I was painfully American)

The (very British) definition of “nation” you used isn’t at all sensible with what the OP asked. To use meriam-Webster’s definition as a guide, you meant definition 1.a.1, but there are six other listed definitions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation

That being said, a “nationality’ (meaning the same thing you called a” nation") will inevitably arise within any soverign state (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state, meaning 5.a) which persists for a long enough time. The most obvious example perhaps being my own country, in which a distinct “american” /nationality arose after our civil war, although the distnct non-British nationalities of “Canadian” and “Australian” in those respective countries would also be excellent examples. (As would “british” itself.)

While we’re on odd meanings of words, it’s probably worth mentioning that “race” is an archaic synonym for the same idea, although that usage fell out of common usage some time after the establishment of chattel slavery based on skin color.)

In common English nation, state, and nation-state are near-synonyms for the collectives created by people which exercise ultimate authortiy to enforce rules on conduct within a geographic area, with some variation due to the nominclature used by said collectives for their various subdivisions.

I’m not sealioning. I’d love to read either an actual answer to my questions, a treatise on your “non-anarchist” idea, or even just a passionate rant about terminology.

But quibbling over vocabulary instead of answering questions, without even offering a single link or reference and instead just saying " do your own reading", is simply bad form.

We’re here on social media, and if you don’t want to have a discussion silence is always acceptable.

If there are no nation-states, how do we determine what amount of force is justified for self defense? Who enforces violations of that rule and what are the available punishments? What is our recourse when said enforcers decide to ignore any violence against people who deleted their reddit accounts?

Anarchy is a great ideal, but there are some things governments do that we shouldn’t trust to self-organizing collectives. Unless “union of transphobic gang rapists pedophiles” is something you want to defend.

(Bit snarky, but honestly curious as to your answer.)

Because US currency is absurdly widely accepted. There are whole nations who just use the US dollar instead of minting their own, and global industries such as oil that set their worldwide price in dollars even for transactions that have nothing to do with the USA.

There are also the “legal tender” and “debts shall not be questioned” issues. If you get a local tax bill for $100 and find a $100 bill from 1826, you can expect that if you walked down to the town clerk and just hand the note over for face value.

(Note that I’m too lazy to check either when the first $100 notes were issued, what the precise rules are about accepting cash in unusual form, or what clarifying rules Congress might have passed like when they banned private use of banknotes with higher face values.)

Denial of a prediction from the same techbros who said bitcoins would replace dollars and banks, or NFTs would be used for real estate,.or napster would launch the careers of new musicians, or.you wouldnt need a printer anymore,.or computers would lead to a.three day workweek,isn’t exactly Luddites complaining about weaving machines.

If LLMs are still economical after the bubble pops they’ll be tools that increase efficiency and in some cases help one human do your job and someone else’s. Which was exactly the trend for all jobs before the AI bubble started.