 Ricklin, I don't understand anarchy. What exactly would stop the same consolidation of power from people grouping together and using the combined resources of many to defeat the few? Because anarchy is not about centralized government, right? Anarchy preserves individual liberty, right? Sure you can have corruption where a group of people in the region get together and start abusing other people, right? But anarchy doesn't have that mechanism in place where that entity can grow really large to take over a nation and act as one unit in that nation, right? Because anarchy is against centralization, right? The core doctrine of anarchy is against centralization of power, right? Like for us, a lot of people say, oh, if we didn't have governments, I've had this argument from people, if we didn't have government and chaos, people would be killing each other and stuff like this. I turn to them and say, look, governments have committed the most horrendous crimes in history and they have caused the most number of deaths in history. Let's say the United States didn't have a centralized power. Okay, sure. They'd be skirmishes within the United States, between the different regions, maybe. But would the United States be an empire that is waging war across the globe causing what? Just in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the 2 million deaths in Laos, how many million in Vietnam, how many million in Cambodia, right? Like, what the fuck? So the more centralized the power becomes, the more devastating, the more brutal it's the damage if it decides to do damage, right? That's why decentralization is ridiculously important because that way you don't have, if the machine breaks, it doesn't take everything down with it, right? It makes a world anti-fragile, right? It makes a world anti-fragile.