>Westerners can live together without laws, provided that each has a firearm.
>Mogadishu and other parts of Africa are going to be hell holes because that is the negro's nature.
Yeah well that's just like forgeting about reality entirely, we can also pretend the moon doesn't exist while we are at it. If you trully believe the above then you have a lot to learn about human nature
Besides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
Kingdoms and monarchies fighting each other is not applicable to the current situation.
There is not enough value to be had from invasions and looting (against an armed populace, no less) to justify it in the modern age, in a modern country.
The value in conquest comes from:
A) the tax paying population
B) controlling a commodity (oil, gas)
C) gathering slaves, which is archaic and just a less efficient version of point A
You're not going to have villages pillaging each other when none will pay taxes, and everyone will fight to the death with firearms. The risk-reward just isn't there.
>Kingdoms and monarchies fighting each other is not applicable to the current situation.
The "current situation" being? Anarchy, that's what we are talking about, anarchy, no man made laws, free for all no rules
...
Well in that situation my friend... Might is right. You don't get that you get nothing, and there's no "but but but"
That's the law of the jungle, that's a world without man made laws, that's what you're asking for
...
So, what would you be in that order of things?
The biggest predator? Because if you're not my friend, you're fucked, you'll be a slave, because that's what's going to happen to losers, because that's what always happened until a very very recent period, and it only stopped because of? Of the Law.
I understand the concept of "might is right". My argument is that if everyone was armed, the risk of flexing that might outweighs any benefits.
In this context the current situation is: everyone is armed. They live in villages/communities or even cities, with free trade between everyone. Basically, very similar to how it is now, minus the taxes and welfare. I concede that if the situation was different: IE there was a famine, or some new viral outbreak or plague and everyone was scrambling for limited food or medical supplies; then yes, you'd be very right: you'd have to fight for survival. But that would happen regardless of government system.
And, in the absence of all that, there'd be simply no justification to fight each other.
Onto your point about slaves, it only stopped because of capitalism and everything that came with it (including industrialisation):
It's only recently in history that we've realised that willing individuals are much more efficient and productive (even after wage costs) than slaves. Also, thanks to industrialisation, machines designed by willing engineers are much better than slaves. Even if you managed to rather a group of people, convince them to fight for your cause, and enslaved a bunch of other people, what would you do with them? Force them to tend to your crops? You could just pay the wages you would need to pay for security guards directly to a modern farmer, and you'd get much more food than you would otherwise. There just isn't enough value in human labour to justify the expense.
Maybe you could simply extort them (weaker people), but you can only do that to a point before they'd revolt, and it'd only be possible if they were disarmed and weak in the first place. Guns are a force equaliser. Very different from suits of armour, swords and horses.
tl;dr:
The value in human labour (slavery) isn't there to justify the risk of fighting. That's what's different between the past thousands of years, and now.
(post is archived)