your whole post conflates hierarchical violence and distributed tyranny with anarchism. incredibly dishonest framing.
Fucking what.
i think i’m fine without getting validation from the roman slave-state
Yes, yes, we get it, there's nothing you hate more than examples of societal functioning that align with your professed values, unless the function in question is run by a genocidal bootlicker state you simp for, like the Soviet Union, the PRC, and fucking North Korea, which you assert has 'anarchist tendencies'.
Enjoy that boot leather, it's painted a real nice shade of red. Or maybe that's the blood of the proletariat covering it? I guess that makes it taste even better to fascist scum like you.
the people who had power were the patriarchs and patrons, ‘the community’ was free male citizens only. this excluded women, slaves and anyone who wasn’t a citizen.
The discussion is within the context of the citizen community. The exclusion of women and non-citizens from this discussion is not meant to present the Roman system as in some way laudable by modern standards, but to present that community enforcement on a roughly and formally non-hierarchical fashion is demonstrably possible.
local patrons (oligarchs) would mobilize client networks as private armies to collect debts and exert local control. this wasn’t limited to street violence, patron networks also dominated local legal systems.
Your characterization of patronage as consisting of oligarch-dominated street violence only holds any credibility in the city of Rome itself in the very last years of the Republic, but I guess your desperation to discredit any functioning of non-hierarchical non-institutionalized enforcement leads to that level of disingenuity, doesn't it, bootlicker?
patria potestas meant that households were formally domestic tyranny. heads of household had legal power of life and death over wives, children, and slaves.
Patria potestas was not a legal function even by the mid-Republic, if it ever actually was, but thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of basic Roman law, including Roman marriage. What did you do, badly skim the wiki page on Roman law and decide you were an expert?
none of this is anti-hierarchical or consensual. ’no formal police’ just meant violence was privatized through patron-client networks and patriarchal households.
Again, reflecting a near-total ignorance of Roman law and society.
roman collegia were not mutual aid, they were hierarchical guilds with aristocratic patrons who had total control over the institution. they enforced trade monopolies and social conformity among members.
This is a particularly idiotic conflation of Roman collegia with later medieval guild systems, though unsurprising coming from a ignorant bootlicker like you.