The idea that centralized violence is necessary for a "functioning" society is a common misconception. It's rarely discussed in political circles but we've got to remember that the state as we understand it is a technology, not some divinely ordered system. And as HNers should well know, something new can always come along and obsolete the old.

There are a number[1] of anthropological investigations into this (outside the scope of anarchist theory to which this tenant is integral) although they're fairly diffuse.

This is similar to the idea that a a voting majority is the only reasonable way to make egalitarian decisions. As anarchist[2] and non-heirarchical organizations (whether we're talking Kobanê or Valve) are illustrating, governing by consensus is a rarely discussed but viable alternative.

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=society%20without%20ch... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

Are there any proposed systems in which a billion person society can function without centralized violence?

There are many such proposed systems. A better question is if there are any such proposed systems that aren't silly and predicated an a refusal to understand human nature.

I know a number of communists and anarchists who seem to believe they can just wish away aspects of primate psychology.

I can believe a small group can exist as a collective without violence for a while (maybe a long while), but how can any such group deal with a member that decides to use violence to get their way? Either that person becomes leader, the group organises to stop them with violence or the group dissolves.

And I don't think even such a temporary arrangement can scale much above Dunbar's number.

Not to mention those who advocate for free-market capitalism as a panacea, but don't acknowledge that violence is logical conclusion of the exploitation of a market without any regulation.

That or they believe the Roman model of private armies vying for control of a state was a great idea.

This is a completely incorrect characterisation of the current state of free-market anarchist thinking. Please see Michael Huemer's "The Problem of Political Authority" for an actual discussion of the moral/ethical problems with governments, and a proposal for free-market anarchy.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho...

Can you provide a link to a good overview of his arguments? I'm interested but the wikipedia page is all about critical reception.

Here is a link to the first bit of the book.[1] His arguments are tough to sum up, becasue he responds to each justification for the authority of the state, and describes many details. The second link is something approaching a summary.[2]

[1] http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/Contents.pdf

[2] http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/proble...

>In the second half of The Problem of Political Authority, I consider how an anarchist society might work, specifically, an “anarcho-capitalist” society. In this society, the services now provided by governmental police would instead be provided by competing protection agencies, hired either by individuals or by associations of property owners. Protection agencies, knowing that violence is the most expensive way of resolving disputes, would require their customers to seek peaceful resolutions of any disputes with other individuals. Agencies would decline to protect those who either willfully initiated conflicts with others or refused to seek peaceful resolutions; any agencies that acted otherwise would find themselves unable to compete in the marketplace due to the soaring costs created by their troublesome clients. The services presently provided by government courts would instead be provided by private arbitrators, hired by individuals who had disputes with one another. Laws, rather than being made by a legislature, would be made by the arbitrators

So we'll have "protection agencies" who have military arms and logistics arms to manage the necessary affairs of the agency. Those agencies will somehow provide equipment to their military, or else they'll be inferior to the other agencies, meaning they will not be giving protection free of charge, instead they will run capitalist markets within their domain and somehow extract a profit (either by taxing transactions, or charging individuals). How exactly is that different from the current nation-state paradigm?

Please read the book if you would like a complete explanation of Huemer's ideas. In short, the protection agencies he describes as one alternative to the current coercive state is as follows: There can be a large number of different-sized protective agencies which operate under contract with either neighborhood associations, or individual landowners (depending on size and preferences). Some may be large, while others will be small; there is no reason to believe economies of scale exist for protective agencies as they do for car companies. It is unlikely that the agencies will fight with one another, as they have strong disincentives (on multiple levels) to do so. It is most likely that they would operate under subscription contracts, and the market for protection will likely be a lively and competitive one.

Huemer's anarchy is very different from the current state; it is not 'the same with one or two changes'.

> there is no reason to believe economies of scale exist for protective agencies

Seriously? There is a huge advantage to being the biggest, baddest agency. If you're substantially larger than the competition you just go to them and say "hi there, give me all your stuff or we kill all of you and your clients".

> It is unlikely that the agencies will fight with one another, as they have strong disincentives

You're completely leaving out the incredibly strong incentive of "Give me your stuff or I kill you". It's infinite profit!

There are two ways history has proven to prevent "Hobbesian War" as he calls it: One incredibly powerful military hegemony, or a delicate balance of multiple exactly equally powerful military hegemonies. Anytime neither of those exist in an area, you get war because it's a lot easier to take someone else's stuff than it is to make your own. To think otherwise is hilariously naiive.

I will not be able to address your arguments one-by-one without rewriting chapters of Huemer's book. I would recommend that you or anyone else interested in these points read the book and/or the numerous discussions he has had online with other academics.

It will be very difficult for you to come up with off-the-cuff arguments which will best a book written by an experienced philosopher over more than a year, and you are unlikely to win over anyone who agrees with Huemer in this forum for exactly that reason. If you wish to discredit him, I suggest you find an academic who has written a thoughtful critique of "The Problem of Political Authority", or that you write a book or paper on its flaws. Anything short of that is most likely to be self-satisfying but ineffective rhetoric.

The problem is that there's no guarantee that the protection agencies will all operate from anarcho-capitalist premises. All you need is one anarcho-socialist protection agency that protects property rights based on need rather than on dibs, and you have unavoidable internal violence.

Huemer addresses this sort of issue. If by "protects property rights based on need" you mean 'takes things other people possess', that protection agency could have a conflict with others. This sort of situation may occur, but is relatively unlikely given the high costs associated with such conflicts, and a number of other factors described by Huemer.

If my characterization is incorrect, please describe a viewpoint-neutral algorithm capable of determining whether the anarcho-socialist group has a claim to the goods they do not possess. If no such algorithm exists, the socialist protection agency is indistinguishable from a group of theives.

It should also be noted that Huemer explicitly states that socialist groups would likely exist in the anarchy he describes. They would, however, not be able to coerce non-members.

> If by "protects property rights based on need" you mean 'takes things other people possess', that protection agency could have a conflict with others.

Do you have any idea just how much property in a capitalist economy is possessed by someone other than the owner? What happens if I'm renting a house from you and you try to evict me? Now it's your protection agency--not mine--trying to take something that other people possess.

In fact, capitalist economies also have shades of legal ownership, i.e. lienholding--so I might even be the legal owner of a Camaro, but if I don't pay the car payment the repo man is legally entitled to take something I not only possess, but actually have some legal title to! And this only works because there's an unambiguous and authoritative legal framework in which these kinds of actions are permissible within bounds of regulation. OK, so if your anarcho-capitalist protection agency tries to repossess my Camaro and my anarcho-capitalist protection agency doesn't think your protection agency followed enough due process, where do we go from there?

The entire point of having a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force is that these kinds of disputes are inevitably going to come up, competing sides are going to be unable to come to a settled agreement, and in the absence of a state, these disagreements will escalate to violence. This isn't a theory, it's the observed history of humanity.

My point was intended to look at the relationship between force and propaganda. I think the effective use of propaganda is a function of the size and power of an organization. Thus, organizations that achieve greater power are more effective at creating an image of legitimacy.

If a government utilizes extensive propaganda against its citizens, can it really be called a democratic government? I'd argue that it cannot.

Your points are interesting but I think that saying government=organisation=mafia ignores the larger differences.

Large organisations might have better propaganda but the nature of the organisation might be a bigger factor in the equation.