Whoa there (Off-Topic)

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Friday, December 20, 2019, 11:32 (644 days ago) @ SonofMacPhisto

Without the state there are no laws.


There are no rules.


There are no ethics.


The society that you live in free from the hardships and indifference of nature is only possible by such means. To declare it immoral is to embrace the amorality and suffering of nature. Which, under social contract theory you can choose to do. The fact that nobody today would ever chose to leave the contract is a testament to the value the state provides.

My position does not lead to what you describe here but seeks to imagine a social contract free of hierarchy and all the suffering it creates. The state is not the only reasonable option. Never has been.

So what are we talking about here? Do you just don't want to get into your ideal society because it would be a long discussion? I know it's easier to say what you find wrong in someone else's argument than telling your entire side of things but all I'm seeing so far is "that's wrong and I disagree"

Are you for social shaming? Outcasting by societal vote? Who determines what is good? What is bad? Social majority? Who enforces punishment if someone breaks what society thinks is right? Do you even punish them?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread