Guess what traits tend to make for people better at securing and conserving power within groups, and keeping loyalty within their ranks?

In a time of crisis. The biggest downside of these leaders is that they keep creating new crises to stay in power. There are cases of killing such a leader because of that.

And in a lot of leaders, their status was defined for how much they could give away and how generous they were, not how tough they were.

Then there is religion, that manages to encoded certain rules and pass them on to the next generations.

The world is a lot more than psychopaths.

We probably have different understandings of the word “libertarian,” from what I’m reading.

I’m referring to the people who would also label themselves “anarcho-capitalists,” as the literal definition of libertarianism isn’t typically associated with the term. I put it in quotes since capitalism by design leads to and encourages hierarchy (private ownership etc etc). No, commerce/trade is not the same and is as about as old as written history itself.

I’m also autistic and have been ostracized for “wrong” behavior. When I say “pro social” I mean mutual aid, genuine compassion and actually treating other humans with respect for their immutable traits (beliefs like bigotry don’t count). I do not mean masking or “fitting in.” Unfortunately we do get unfairly judged and that’s bad. But - we also are generally capable of finding and forming our own groups.

Sovereign utopia building as a whole has its own set of issues, but that’s not what was specifically being addressed. Socialist policies in general improve the wellbeing of the respective societies they’re applied to, though.

Those are owned by Native Americans... Not white billionaires

I wrote a long reply to explore some ideas I've been entertaining recently. I guess I just wanted to straighten my own thoughts out, so please don't take this as pontificating or "this is how it is for sure". I just like thinking while typing. Feel free to not read.

I see your point and definitely agree with the conclusion:

Clearly, when it comes to certain kinds of problems, the response must be collective, supported by public effort

But umm.. Sometimes the larger threat isn't bears that randomly come over from the woods. Sometimes the people that were elected to protect you from bears and were supported by the public, even cheered and applauded... Idk, circumstances are important.

I also feel like lots of people focus a lot on the inherent flaws of different systems of political organization that they don't adhere to, while turning a blind eye on their own.

Governance is actually important. Whoda thunk?

Some day you'll read Tao Te Ching and maybe stop thinking in absolutes.

Where I live libertarians are the most adequate part of the social fabric suppressed by that governance. Trots are the second.

In any case, you can have a thought experiment of the same town the same size with a group of people assuming governance and telling others what to do. They can collect taxes and tell they are using them as well as they can. The bear problem will probably be smaller, albeit sometimes someone complaining will accidentally meet a bear, the drowning in trash one - I dunno, probably the trash will move to the places furthest from where that group lives, but won't be really disposed of, because - why? No incentive.

I've become a libertarian after watching one enthusiastic teacher organize some sort of discussion clubs. Everyone in favor of more governance eventually shifted to authoritarianism, when talking long enough, because when you are thinking as if you were the government, you just won't understand why you shouldn't surrender power and then why you should answer to anyone. Less governance - OK, I was alone in that, but the best (in their opinion) argument the others found was "so how do you host olympics in a libertarian land, or build a centrally planned new city? checkmate", and of course there's nothing I can answer to that because I don't think a society needs global projects or flag days.