yet we have government all around the globe and they can't manage to do it. So this is an argument in favor on anarchy since it shows the incompetence of governments.
In anarchy it's even worse to reach the consensus.
I'd like to delegate my vote in certain areas to people smarter than me. the problem with democracy, dictatorship and anarchy is that somebody have to make decisions for others and most of the time he/she is incompentent
how do you know if it had never existed?
how do you know if they are smarter than you? Because average dumb people voted?
well, isn't that self contradicting..
Anarchy never scaled with big communities of people.
Also internet which started like a decentralized/anarchy system (a sorta) now the biggest part is controlled by a few companies.
If a person show to be compentent to a field I marginally know I would delegate my decision to him. If he isn't able to fix or manage the problem I'll revoke my vote.
Average dumb people vote for somebody which promise everything to everybody, if you could vote for somebody in a specific area it would be easier to understand and measure it's performances
that is an entirely different argument. In 1900 you could have said that slavery is ok because humans always had slaves. Arguments from nature/history are bound to be fallacious. Just because it didn't happen before it doesn't mean it can't happen in future.
it is not that old really. not even 100 years. give it time.
well yes..but people don't vote based on that but based on who can make their life better. more or less nepotism with extra steps.
true but that is not how things work and you know this very well.