IrateAnteater

I am being genuine in my arguments. Political discussions are no fun when the disingenuous trolls take over, even if my sarcastic nature leaks out and I come across that way sometimes.

The first step is to lower crime / anti-social behaviour. If everyone in the community is happy, there's less need for anti-social behaviour. Sharing food and pooling resources

That first step is a doozy. And is basically the step that every political system gets kind of stuck on. The goal is simple enough, but the actual "how" of getting it done, not to mention how to maintain it once you've achieved it, is enormously complex.

And the society without money thing I don't think is actually possible, unless you want to go back to a purely agrarian society. Money, at it's core is just a placeholder for resources to simplify bartering. The systems we've built around it are often fucked and can go, but money itself is just a useful tool.

I try to think of systems that are stable and can scale up to cover everyone (this is also a pipe dream, since people aren't purely rational). The idea of no one in charge, and the community deciding and enforcing everything can work up to a small town level, but a national or global level, it falls apart.

Some things, like major infrastructure for example, are necessary to have, but impossible to fund through voluntary means. No individual or small community has the money to build it on their own, and getting everyone to agree on what exactly should be done for any given project is damn near impossible. There needs to be a central planning authority of some sort, and they need to have the funding to execute these types of projects. Now what scale and format that planning authority has is the heart of every debate on which political system is best.

the means of self defence are equally distributed

That has never been, and will never be true. You could magically eliminate all weapons on the planet simultaneously and it still won't be true, since some people are bigger and stronger than others.

And in case you haven't been paying attention to history; authoritarians very rarely just show up out of nowhere and take over. They are usually installed as leader after some form of revolution, then the title just gets transferred once the authoritarian system is in place. It's usually far more insidious than just some guy the village has to band together to fight off.

Ok, but scale that up and try to account for bad actors. Human nature isn't going to change, and so the are guaranteed to be people working to abuse the system. "The community will enforce" is just handwaving away the problem without actually dealing with it, just as much as bullshit like "the free market will solve x problem" is.

For single player games, I absolutely agree. If you're going to stop supporting the game, send out one last patch turning off any always online DRM and let people keep playing their game.

For multiplayer games, it seems like it's a bit more complicated. Who should be shouldering the cost to keep the game servers alive?

If that's how it works, then a stable anarchist society is impossible. The first asshole that comes along with a bigger gun than everyone else will have it right back to a dictatorship.

Who has authority to enforce those rules? If no one, then how do you resolve disputes in a civil, yet binding fashion?

Never understood the thought process behind these sovereign citizens. Let's say you accept the initial premise that they are their own country not subject to Canadian laws... aaaand you've been conquered. And are now subject to Canadian laws.

I did a similar diagonal route across Canada. 84 hours it says.

23 hours is about as high as you are going to get while maintaining a (relatively) straight path. The north is not really accessible by road.

Edit: I take that back. I managed to get up to 27 hours driving from the Ambassador Bridge to Windigo Lake.

One example does not prove a trend.

Plus, I'm just talking about perception, not the reality of the actual political leanings of every single Carhartt customer.

Wait, Carhartt is a stereotype of the left wing now? I've always associated it with very blue collar, outdoors type work. The kinds of jobs that you wouldn't typically associate with left wing extremism.