Greece and Madagascar are both places with actual governments...
That doesn't help your brain-dead arguments at all. And again, the 150 people mark is due to the very structure of your brain. It cannot handle anything more than 150 relationships.
That's you, me, and every living human on the planet. 150 is the mean maximum number of social relationships that anyone can have.
To get around this maximum number of relationships and still get things done, we as a species invented organization and governance.
If you try to run a community without taking this physiological limitation into account, your community will fail. Sometimes to bears.
i cited two societies that passed it, but you found some other reason to dismiss them. if that's not moving the goal posts or setting up a no-true-scotsman then i guess i should get a refund for my degree.
House cats don't recognize their owners ruling over them, but they're 100% dependent regardless.
And that's what you remind me of the most, a house cat who has never eaten anything except the food put into your bowl, but completely convinced that you're the best hunter in the world, not understanding anything about where the food comes from or how any of it actually works.
calling the freedom fighters of exarcheia or the sheep farmers of madagascar "house cats" who depend on others to feed them is dehumanizing and inaccurate. they fought for every inch of land and every scrap of food.
Squatters and farmers, both are dependent on the larger societies around them, even if they outwardly claim otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, squatting is cool as fuck, but even when sticking it to the man, you're still dependent on his world.
Hell, Exarcheia even goes against your own picture of a perfect society, they used a form of direct democracy with actual voting on policy.
Policy that was enforced throughout the camps.
Circling back to farmers, again, you hit that 150-person limit on community size without some form of policy abstraction. i.e. some form, any form, of governance and policy.
You have fairly thin skin. Although the second was closer to an actual insult than the first. The first was calling your argument stupid. As in, it is, me telling you to do better.
The second was saying that I feel like I'm arguing with someone whose arguments so far are akin to believing in Santa Claus. Closer to an actual insult, but still not making it personal or actually attacking you.