Your an impatient bugger.
I’ll get to it…
What is wrong with strongmen? That all depends on which sociological model you choose to follow. For my money, I like living in a system where I don’t routinely fear for my life and can’t be arbitrarily killed 
As for the evolutionary aspect of it, that is largely debatable. Since humans seem to form peaceful societies fairly quickly, it would seem as though evolution has selected a different model for us. That actually makes a good deal of sense. You gotta get the Spencer out, that was junk from the beginning. Nash, however, isn’t junk and has a lot of good reasons why a cooperative alternative would be beneficial.
As for the notion of ‘weakness’ that is such an ill-defined concept that it really isn’t worth addressing. Is an individual weak, what about a society? There is normally a fair amount of give-and-take between those poles and as one rises the other usually falls. Again, Nash equilibrium offers some interesting solutions to this problem.
As for historical examples of societal breakdown and its ill-effects, well, we can look at Weimar Germany as one of the classic cases of social breakdown that was restored by a strongman. Ditto for Fascist Italy and Spain. The ‘Dark Ages’ (so, ~400CE to ~800CE) would also be a good demonstration of the nasty day-to-day violence that occurs when society collapses and strongmen rise to the top. Warrings States period China is another and, again, it was solved by a strongman who is one of history’s most reviled characters. The list goes on.
Then they should be sorted out by evolution and nature for their weakness in not being able to flourish amongst a perfect chaotic system.
The more I read and look into things it seems that governments are harborers of weakness.
Atleast your honest.
How so?
The only order that is valid to me is the original order of chaos where all things are created from until that day of infinite regression occurs.
Let them die by nature’s hand. That is the most real form of progress in my eyes.
I can think of many reasons off the top of my head;
Self sufficiency, independence and the kind of freedom that is real that doesn’t need to be bought.
Because there are simply too many people. duh. A government is just a big group effort to take care of a shitload of people. and whats so bad about that anyway?
It interferes with evolution,nature and freedom.
Not if it is informal and amoral. 
People may indeed never be able to stop those from forming governments but they can stop themselves from being revolved around them.
“It interferes with evolution,nature and freedom.”
no.
it is painfully apparent that in order for the human population to grow and expand, government was needed, this goes way back in Babylonian times, it has been like this for 1000’s of years, it’s time to accept it.
There is nothing progressive about population expansions especially since such forms of growth can destroy natural resources overtime that humanity desperately needs in order to survive.
Government is a utilization of the weak and at best is a idiotic last resort due to the mess humanity has created for itself.
You know what is worse than government? The countless generations of lazy sons-of-bitches who would rather gripe about how stupid government is than do anything about it.
If one is too scared to do what he thinks is right, he doesn’t deserve to wallow in a steamy pile of pessimism.
The pessimists do serve a purpose though: to give the optimists and visionaries a background to look good against.
That’s the whole joke of anarchism…
It is trying to create a formal informal system… get it?
A systemless system…
An organization without organization isn’t an organization.
All system’s fail or neglect certain parties in the system, no matter what!
Blah blah blah…
You haven’t been speaking with enough Daoists.
I was thinking while driving to work today…
To an observer from outer space, there is no difference in appearance between humans bustling here and there… and ants bustling here and there. It is so funny how important we think we are as we run from here to there.
We have our little organization systems and governments, and ants have theirs. They are just systems of organization. Ants work together to achieve something and so do humans. We attack eachother and have our different little groups. But neither (ants and humans) seem any more significant than the other from space… even if the humans managed to completely blow up the world and destroy all the humans and ants on it. 
[size=59]Anarchism is stupid.[/size]
I haven’t?
If you are refering to me, I would agree with you and I would like you to point me in the right direction.
Why do you bring up Daoists my friend?
Daoists eat that shit for breakfast. And I don’t mean that in a Clint Eastwood sort of way, I mean that in a ‘you are what you eat’ sort of way. If you want to know more, I’d listen to Mastriani and Tentative. If you are slightly less lazy, I’d check out my Daily Daodejing threads. If you are even less lazy I’d suggest searching for what Mas, Tent, and LiquidAngel have to say on the topic. If you are downright motivated, I’d check out the Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu). Burton Watson has a good translation.
You can’t fix a disaster.
And your crude definition of lazy is a word to describe those who don’t whore themselves out to society in comparison to those who have sold their very lives and soul.
Just more crude archaic defamation, honestly I expected more from you.
In my world that dark shadow of a background swallows those visionaries and optimists into oblivion since they are the inventors of such creations like that of the atomic bomb.
Pessimists are cautious. Don’t confuse caution and fear.
I just see anarchism trying to get back into the original system of the natural symbiosis from which all things sprawl from.
Human beings need a system obviously to survive but the reason they keep screwing up all the time is that they think the best functional one falsely is that of their own creation when infact the perfect creation untouched by man’s hand is the natural creation itself that sustains us all.
This is the futility of government,politics and indeed all society.
That is the very reason why all of man’s history is a failure filled with inequality,injustice and insanity.
I guess I’ll use the same question you do. Why? Also, I don’t see how a system can be perfectly chaotic. Because, like I said, life itself is organization. A cell is an organization of molecules that has a certain function. With “perfect chaos”, nobody would even exist, because every molecule would have to be evenly spread out, and not in any kind of pattern or organization.
And one more thing – I don’t think weakness is only in lack of physical strength. Again, people who are smart can build machines that can lift thousands of times the weight a human could. An intelligent person who might not survive in a world that favors the physically fit, can survive in today’s world.
No, the government doesn’t harbor weakness, it harbors weak PEOPLE. Our government does not support weakness in general, but it does support its own people to an extent, even if they are weak. You’re making it sound like the government is promoting weakness in general.
Not sure what you’re getting at, but when I said natural selection is great, I meant we owe our existence to it. Without natural selection, we would never have evolved into the beings we are today. Now, however, we’re evolved beyond the need for any more physical evolution.
Um… I said this in my post. Life itself is organization of molecules. Form and function. Without order, there can be no life, because cells, DNA, and proteins would not exist. True chaos cannot support life.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Order of chaos? If there were order in chaos, then it wouldn’t be chaos. I guess the reference I was making in “structure created from chaos” was when life first started around 3.7 billion years ago when the first amino acids were formed out of the molecules that existed in the atmosphere. The building blocks of life were formed out of an environment a lot more chaotic than what it is now.
Really? In what way? Are you trying to tell me that physical fitness is more important than huge scientific discoveries? What if one of the discoveries involves an increase in strength through genetic manipulation? Would that not also be “progress”? Or are you hinting that we’re living in an unnatural world, when we should be living in a natural one? If so, why?
Why is self sufficiency so important if people can become more and more reliant on technology? When technology can do the same thing we can but faster, then why be self sufficient? And why is independence important? We can depend on technology, especially once it makes more advances. We’re already a lot more dependent upon technology than a hundred years ago. And what do you mean, freedom? The kind of freedom that hurts other people, like thievery, violence, and rape? Do you think it’s totally okay to do whatever you want at the expense of others? Why? Are they not human as well? If you mean something else by “freedom”, then please explain.
Only in response to OP
My root argument for the necessity of hierarchy is always that it is natural to our species.
All primates have complex orders of alphamales and dominant females. Mammals, for that matter. Birds are exceptionally anarchistic, but they order themselves around earth cycles, they don’t engineer new patterns.
Technologically speaking, an “anarchy,” as in a network of organisms which govern themselves solely by interaction, is entirely plausible. In fact, that’s quite the principal behind the internet (even though you couldn’t call that “alive” at the moment). But humans would need at least an engineering overhaul to be ideal for anarchy.
Think of the people you not only trust as colleagues but mentors and advisors. Even a social contract deems a hierarchy (responsabilities assigned to people). We take pride in being leaders at times, and in following those we admire.
I say that anarchism is a valid social concept, but it must be rooted in the success of theoretical anarchic systems, not the angst, dissatisfaction, or hatred of our current rulership. Our leading governments are corrupt, no doubt about it. By all means, seek to change them fundamentally. But “no government instead of our government” is kind of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Similar in principal if not in morals: “humans have problems, so no humans please.” Of course I admit to making the latter argument from time to time.
I just want people to know that Anarchism is indeed a system lacking government but that does not entail that it wouldn’t have any organization.
There is a difference between government and a loose informal social organization.
Cooperative social organizations can exist without a centralized state government.
I’m so excited, I’m taking an Eastern literature class and an Eastern philosphy class for my wife (she is getting her degree online) and she said I get to take those two classes for her! It will be great. I’m very excited and motivated.