Because most people think anarchists are violent, rock throwing looters. A stateless society would be awesome and it would work.
People who CAN accept morality without a god, probably CAN accept society without a state.
What about those who believe morality stems from God? What about those who, regardless of their morality, cannot get past cultural societal differences?
Samual L Jackson recent made some interesting comments on that aspect.
Society without a state would be red in tooth and claw to borrow from Tennyson.We live in a world filled with predators of all types.Be thankful for the rules we have made for ourselves.
Morality without a god quickly devolves into moral relativism and that is why religions have evolved into formal systems of conduct and belief.
Without coercion, who would follow rules... especially rules that conflict with a person's wants and desires.
So....you expect the situation to improve with no coersion at all?
Speaking of rules, that stuff you're smoking is likely illegal (sarcasm).
Yes. Because instead of a government providing all the solutions, the people do. I see no difference between a gang of thugs and "politicians".
Oh, and also: "A compulsory morality robs us of the very opportunity to be moral" (Conservatism in America since 1930, Gregory L. Schneider)
You give it a try. Encourage all your friends to give it a try.
Have a little utopian experiment amongst yourselves to have self - enforced morality - no government laws or police enforcement, no insurance or lawsuits
When one of your 'friends' pawns your property, or drives away and wrecks your car, I am sure you can count on them to make it right to your satisfaction. And you will accept the compensation they offer without a grudge, right?
Yours is a ridiculous and untenable position. This conversation is a dead end. Have a good day.
You are implying I haven't already done this. My parents own a cabin on a lake and every summer me and my friends go up there. Every time, we pick a different model of society . Fourierism, collectivism, anarcho-capitalism, Objectivism, etc. We've been doing it for years.
The debate goes to the heart of philosophy. Do you start with the premise that man is a moral creature or from the premise man is an amoral creature? From this point your philosophy develops.
Personally I believe man began as an amoral creature. Might equaled right in the hunter-gatherer societies. And as man developed agriculture, settled, and formed larger communities, might equals right fell in disfavor and laws to protect most people came into being. No laws protected all and most favored the better off because they generally created them.
Truthie, going to your parents' lake house for a couple of weeks of "let's pretend" is not abolishing the state for 300 million people.
Oops! Back to Logic's initial premise. People who accept morality without God. Upon what do they base their morality? There must be some societal construct within which they define morality. Since the majority of American societal construct comes from Judeo-Christian teachings, whether you believe in God or not is not relevant to your moral precepts.
And, yes you can go back to Draco, Hammurabi, and assorted Roman, Babylonian, and Mesopotamian law givers who still have some relevance today. But most will still exhibit some influence from a concept of a God.
@Bryant, did I say it was? No. I showed Snoopy that my position is not "ridiculous and untenable".
"Upon what do they base their morality?"
Nature. Science. Do you need a government, god or law to tell you not to steal? I would hope not. I would hope you know that stealing is wrong and that you won't partake in such thuggish behavior. And on stealing, I find it ironic that the law and government steal on a daily basis and nobody complains. But that's a different topic.
@theflyonthewall, so if you fail once, you should never try again? Sad outlook on life.
Truthie, yes you stated let's pretend is the same in your initial blog in which you stated, a stateless society"...would be awesome and it would work."
As to people gaining their morality from nature and science, nature tells us the weak fall prey to the strong and get eaten. Science tells us nothing about morality, period. Science teaches the physical and the empirical, not the moral.
... and yet it's the conservative side of the fence that is most concerned about enforcing a moral code AND preserving the freedom of the strong to exploit the weak.
Anyways, Bryant, I think you're oversimplifying what "nature tells us." The strong get eaten by the weak (think parasites). Many species enter mutually beneficial relationships with other species (think pollination). Many species form social networks that serve to protect the weaker members of the group (think wolves, elephants, bees). Nature might even tell us about the origins of morality.
I don't think the following moral code (which is completely unreasonable: "Do I want to live in a society where this kind of behavior is acceptable? If the answer is no, then I won't do it." Having said that, I don't have any illusions about the state of a society that relied on people to abide by this. For crying out loud, look how badly we do even with threats of prison and eternal damnation!
Children learn the fundamental principles of natural law at a very early age. Thus they very early understand that one child must not, without just cause, strike, or otherwise hurt, another; that one child must not assume any arbitrary control or domination over another; that one child must not, either by force, deceit, or stealth, obtain possession of anything that belongs to another; that if one child commits any of these wrongs against another, it is not only the right of the injured child to resist, and if need be, punish the wrongdoer, and compel him to make reparation, but that it is also the right, and the moral duty, of all other children, and all other persons, to assist the injured party in defending his rights, and redressing his wrongs. These are fundamental principles of natural law, which govern the most important transactions of man with man. Yet children learn them earlier than they learn that three and three are six, or five and five ten. Their childish plays, even, could not be carried on without a constant regard to them; and it is equally impossible for persons of any age to live together in peace on any other conditions.--Lysander Spooner, Natural Law
Truthie, you're quoting as your expert witness someone who's most notable accomplishment is the three cent stamp? While Mr. Spooner was undoubtedly a philosopher and Constitutionalist, I don't believe he was an expert in child development or education.
And, things have changed since the 1860s.