Right here. Search for "Pennsylvania."
Will it tell me what happened? Why the good people of the colony decided in the end to form a government?
The didn't "decide to form a government." Throughout the period of "anarchy," William Penn was fit to be tied. He considered himself the feudal lord of Pennsylvania, and tried everything he could think of to bring them under his thumb and force them to pay quitrents.
He finally succeeded, be means of illegal strategies. What ultimately worked was to bribe the inactive council by promising them power. Penn's appointed governor offered the council authority to make certain types of laws discriminatory against non-quakers, such as denying the vote for council members to insufficiently-landed persons (the quakers were in general the richest folks in PA). The council found the call of power irresistable, so they recompensed the governor by approving his requested taxes payable to Wm. Penn.
In other words, setting up a (functional) government was the decision of the folks who would thereby end up in power. They realized that by throwing their weight around they could make out like, well, bandits.
"-- Will it tell me what happened? Why the good people of the colony decided in the end to form a government? --"
Izzy denies historical fact:
The didn't "decide to form a government."
The Quaker "anarchy" rebellion didn't work, nor did Penn's royal dictatorship, -- but the next rebellion did succeed.
In other words, setting up a (functional) government was the decision of the folks who would thereby end up in power.
Yes izzy, -- government of the people, by the people...
Our constitutional 'social contract' is working, even though you can't [or won't] admit it.
Since these experiments failed so quickly, I don't think it's reasonable of you to claim them as evidence that people will be better off with anarchy than some government.
In fact, int the Pennsylvania case, I think one of two things are likely. Either most folks willingly joined in accepting the government or a minority insisted and the majority could not organize to resist. Both argue against your case.
Now, back to another of your points. You said
You doubt it, but it happens to be precisely true. Observe that monkeys have hierarchy. It's hardly a human invention. A non-sentient being needs a herd instinct to survive, because cooperation is indeed necessary for survival.Well, you completely missed the point in several ways here. First, contrary to your implication, I was doubting that people in the aggregate would continue to do something very bad for them, as you suggest government is, for many millenia. I observe that people are very smart and have been for tens of thousands of years. If anarachy were actually better for people than government, I suspect that by now anarchy would be a prevalent social form.
Second, I was specifically *not* suggesting that people *don't* have a tendency toward hierarchy. As you note, this is an evolved social trait and people have it too.
Third, since many species get along fine without them, I'd say neither hierarchy nor cooperation are obviously essential traits for survival. I suspect though that they do significantly improve fitness and also that they are socially beneficial.
Fourth, you argue against yourself somewhat. I'd say government clearly increases cooperation compared to many small hierarchies (note that I am arguing *rationally* by analogy of humans with apes and monkeys). I'd also argue that anarchy *decreases* cooperation compared to many small hierarchies. If cooperation were an essential survival trait, and supposing you agree people are better off alive than dead, doesn't govenrment clearly have a social benefit relative to anarchy?