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?
Yes, but exactly what sort of failure? In each case, failure was the result of individuals' scheming to get power for themselves. That's the fundamental fact of human nature we're facing: not only will G-men come after you if you defy today's government, but if government disappeared, men would promptly set about creating one--precisely because it's such a great racket for the fellows at the top.
or a minority insisted and the majority could not organize to resist. Both argue against your case. That's exactly what happened--but how does that "argue against my case"? I've said all along that lack of government is better, but that humans are such unevolved herd animals that the masses would refuse to live like that. They're to frightened, if the alpha male isn't there to tell them what to do.
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.
You didn't suppor this claim of yours. I claim the opposite, and support it thus: apes evolved cooperative behavior, because cooperation provides a competitive advantage. However, in small family units, that "cooperation" is essentially socialistic. Thus humans evolved as socialistic herd animals, and they retain their herd instincts to this day. Thus they don't choose self-government because it's contrary to their genetic programming.
There are any number of examples where intellect can improve on nature, but that doesn't mean nature cooperates.
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.
That's what makes anarchy essentially impossible today, as I've said before.
You're correct that I have whatever human baggage you do. However, humans can overcome instinct with reason--for example, someone afraid of heights can nevertheless motivate himself to bail out of an airplane. At the same time, most humans do not overcome their instincts.
So one way of looking at it is that humans will adopt anarchy when they evolve sufficient intelligence for the majority to leave behind animal instincts. Then again, there's no reason to believe that humans ever will evolve enough intelligence.
I'd say government clearly increases cooperation compared to many small hierarchies...
That's possible but by no means obvious. In the world we have an anarchistic system running in parallel with governments, called the "free market". That market is imperfect, because government interferes in it frequently, but it's essentially anarchistic. And whenever it goes head-to-head with government, it kick's government's @ss. After hurricane Katrina, for example, WalMart's response to the disaster put Fema's to shame.
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?
That's an excellent question! My suggested answer is that evolution doesn't pick the "best" solution; it picks any solution that works. "Cooperation" is a survival trait, but that doesn't mean that evolution picks the best possible form of cooperation. The tyranny of the alpha male is "better" than trying to survive all by yourself, but there are much better ways.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't about not cooperating; it's about all cooperation being voluntary.