That was, at least the common narrative goes, the fundamental basis for most if not all states. Mutual defense. And it's hardly any different today. There have been many cases of non-state societies who did organize their own protections. But to try and connect the dots with such factions (many of which are still functioning today) and the modern man is an error. We're talking societies with scribal and priestly classes which in no ways exist in the modern era, when the global average literacy sits at 83% and the mindblowing advancements we've seen in the last two decades alone is a force multiplier for autonomous organization that is totally unprecedented, like most of all of the advancements seen since the seminal moments of the industrial revolution.

But ultimately your negative outlook on the human condition is your own, 99% of daily life proceeds under conditions of total anarchy, authority and security are entirely illusory and we pay incredible costs to maintain those illusions, not in terms of liberty alone, but in toil and life itself. It leaves little left to live for, read the Death of Ivan Illyich if you want a better understanding of what I mean.

> 99% of daily life proceeds under conditions of total anarchy, authority and security are entirely illusory and we pay incredible costs to maintain those illusions

Those costs are totally worth it. I'd rather live in a nation with liberal democracy and property laws, than whatever more "pure" or original model you seem to have in mind.

You say that but history has lots of examples of people taken in by such egalitarian societies and doing an about-face, and when the European societies took in people, they more often sought to return.

In any case, what I'm talking about is democratic and does not forego property rights, in fact it could give you stronger property rights. But you didn't read the grandparent.