Comment: One can't say with certainty

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If (see in situ)

One can't say with certainty

anything about prehistory, besides speculations based on archaeological findings of hunting goods and such. However, none of that suggests anything about the hierarchical structure of prehistoric societies. For instance, everyone may have bowed to, worshiped, and followed the orders of the most able hunter. Further, that hunter may have appointed underlings in an official capacity to enforce his will. Perhaps, they even voted. Who knows? I don't and neither do you. It's a horrible basis for an argument.

To make the conclusion you made, one must accept that in the absence of a State, history tends to go unrecorded. However, that is patently false. Even with the existence of prehistoric States, it is entirely plausible that history wasn't recorded faithfully due to a lack of literacy. It stands to reason that power was attractive even before the advent of written language.

I didn't ignore any point. Those that founded this country were under the impression that the State could be limited - which, thus far, thousands of years of experience has proven to be false. It somewhat worked for about forty years - until the Tariff of Abominations started the trend towards tyranny (perhaps even sooner).

If the state didn't exist, there's every reason to think that the economic powers would work to form a state to provide the highest possible security for their economic activity. If the wealthy did not want a state, they have the power now to eliminate it. It isn't the poor who empower the state, it is the rich.

This suggests to me that you haven't paid attention to history. State rule is reliant upon the consent (at least the complacency) of the governed. Authority is an illusion that only lasts as long as the people are willing to believe in it. I don't see too many politicians or billionaires personally pulling triggers. As a 16th Century Frenchman once said (paraphrasing):

"Where do they get the arms to harm you, if not from you?"

In anarchy, some individuals will have power; they will use it to provide order and rules that benefit them. Simple.

As long as they don't have a monopoly on force, I'm not worried.