Looking at your explanation of a tribal state I have to ask you first how is that different from today? Power is inherently down to who can control people, who is the best equipped with weapons and who can control resources. That's how the world works. The only difference between now and a few hundred years ago is that we've developed. Not in terms of technology, science or society as much as in bureaucracy.

Yes and no. The point of our social frameworks is that they bridge small communities into larger ones, from villages to towns to cities, to states, to united states, for example. You only have to hear people chant "U.S.A!" to understand how different that is from a million tiny villages all at war with each other. The USA may have enemies / go to war, but it doesn't go to war with itself.

Power still exists of course, but we have separation of power. The three main branches of the US could disagree, for example, on a key issue, and they each have roles and responsibilities to challenge each other - the president can not just do whatever he wants without comeback. You've had impeachments in the past and you'll have them in the future, laws cannot just be arbritrarily invented on a whim, there is no summary justice. You have a constitution.

The systems that are put in place to keep people in line are developed and initiated by the people who stand to gain the most from exploiting them and, more specifically, being the only ones capable of exploiting them.

If that were the case then lawyers would rule the world, but they don't. There are "controls" in place but they are mostly to maximise profit rather than subjugate people - though money is certainly power. But then, its fairly to emancipate yourself - stop caring abot the latest brands, stop equating material posession with social status etc. There, done, that was easy, and didn't require massive social upheaval.

I'd say that in any society where there is control or leadership there is subjugation and inequality but anyone with half a brain knows this. There is no form of governance which will not subjugate some group of people. It's because we live in a world built upon bureaucracy that this happens. Think about it honestly. What are the most horrible jobs people face? It's jobs that involve low pay because they can be done without training or education. People who are educated take better jobs because they pay more and while a lower paying job may be harder it will pay less because people who don't have the qualifications will be willing to compromise.

The free market often drives things like pay (though not always). Take sewer maintenance guy, for example, as a low paid but essential worker. The theory of a free market is, that if everyone suddenly became educated and no-one wanted to do that job any more, the number of available people to do that work would drop sharply, so the demand would rise, meaning that people who were willing to do that job would be able to demand a higher salary. This sort of thing already happens in Japan where people are more highly educated / richer, people don't want to be farmers, so the government has to offer incentives for people to choose that lifestyle. Their government doesn't force anyone to be a farmer...

Nobody has to do those jobs, however there is an opportunity there and if people don't have a qualifications / education, they can take advantage of it. A job is not a right, communities don't have predetermined roles and responsibilities, and people come up with all sorts of different ways to be able to create "value" and it is up to society to decide what "value" it values and what it doesn't, and it uses the free market for this. (Though I'm not denying that the free market is also up for abuse but thats another conversation.)

If we removed concepts like, mass farming of animals, oversized cities, packaging and waste and shit people immediately jump on the offensive by saying there won't be jobs but if we dismantle this to the core of what we need.

If you remove mass farming people will starve. Example : North Korea.

Farming for subsistence and share-cropping for people who can't do so we remove money from the equation.

No, you haven't removed money from the equation. All people created "value" which has to be traded between each other, so my pig is worth 3 of your chickens. Money is simply a proxy for value that has been recognised by society. Money is not "I'll get you your chicken tomorrow I promise" and then never bother because your are lazy or whatever, it is "The chicken was delivered, here is the proxy value".

I don't see what alternatives there are. You have communism which seems like a big pot that basically everybody dumps their value into (physically with produce or otherwise) but no control over their value or measurement on their value, so everyone stays permanently poor and subjugated. That to me isn't a viable alternative.

I don't see how you can ever remove "money".You could become totally self sufficient (grow your own fruits/vegetables etc) but there would always be something someone else created that you'd want to be able to trade. Money is just an extended form of bartering.

If we didn't have governments to fund military research then weapons development wouldn't happen.

No, it wouldn't happen for you, it would still happen for every other country. Unless you are saying that in order for anarchy to work, every country in the world must take part. All that would happen, is that in a few decades, you'd find yourself in the position that most third world countries have "hi, we're here to "liberate" you and help you with that stockpile of natural resources". I don't think you want to subjugate yourselves to foreign powers...

Medical and scientific research would be because it's the best interests of people.

How will you fund medical and scientific research? To be honest though, this could still do the weapons development.

How do you define what is the best interests of people? Every time someone discovers a new line of research, way the possible costs/benefits? "Oh, only 3 people have this disease, don't bother researching it".

Once we remove the concept of statehood as it is a means to cause war, make large scale resources like oil unnecessary and remove religious indoctrination as it will lead to war then we can develop peace.

As a strong agnostic, I'd be curious how you'd attempt to remove religious indoctrination. Separation of church and state had to be mandated in the US, and politicians still attempt to appeal to emotion using it. In other countries, like the UK, we just don't give a crap. Politicians don't try to appeal to religion because people would lose interest in them. What are you going to do when there is a witch hunt against atheists and there is no state to protect you and people stand by idly whilst you are hunted down?

If we remove religion and teach morality independently of it then moral justification cannot be found for atrocities. If we remove statehood then nobody can fun weapons development (for the sake of argument imagine this in a world where farming and other necessary areas exist on a self sustaining and trading level and scientific institutions but nothing else in ways of extra industry or governance.) but it will be in everyone's best interest help develop medical and agricultural sciences etc.

But this sounds like an ideal rather than a principle. People will, anyway, develop new technology and weapons, and attempt to subjugate each other anyway - you just used to be protected by a rather bullying big brother than being at the end of the uranium tipped pointy stick. But its all the same.

And just because something is in everyone's best interests doesn't mean that is how it will happen. Once again, people will disagree with each other, fight with each other and try to use what they have to better their and their "followers" situations. I don't see how you are going to build a framework to prevent this.

For a world like this to exist we must rely on education and self interned morality to become the norm.

Then you are already f£$%ed. You could get rid of laws right now if you could stop people from breaking them - but then you couldn't even get them to agree on what should be theoretical law and what shouldn't be.

Not to mention those who systematically abuse systems to get ahead.

If we completely remove anything unnecessary but hold a strong value on morality and doing good and equality only then can anarchy work but it is the only system that can work for everyone.

I tell you who that system will work excellently for - those assholes who like to abuse people and take advantage of the good will of others - you're offering them everything on a plate, without any sort of contingency plan for dealing with them. The argument is one of The Individual vs The Collective, but without a framework to protect the Collective, the Individual will come in and dominate it, State or no State.