(November 30, 2018 at 12:47 am)Cherub786 Wrote: A common but weak objection against anarchism and the idea of a stateless society. It presumes human beings wake up one day and say “hey, let me dice up my neighbor with my chainsaw just for the heck of it”. Society can theoretically function without a state. Our first human societies were stateless. They were organized around tribe. The modern nation state is just that - “modern”. Before that we had dynastic rule, but they were not as omnipresent as today’s modern states. There were no such thing as passports, visas, SIN, or even driver’s licences.Completely agree with your last sentence. But is the solution to that really to remove all laws? That comes with its own host of issues.
The problem with the rule of law is that that law is often not right.
Now, I'm not responding to the stateless society part, just to the 'no rule of law' part. Our first human societies had no state laws, sure, but that did mean that in theory you could kill someone else without repercussions in many areas. Especially before tribes. And yeah, of course now everyone is going to wake up into an anarchist society and say “hey, let me dice up my neighbor with my chainsaw just for the heck of it”, I get that, but the possibility of that happening is definitely more when there is no law in place that says what happens if you do hack up your neighbor. Lord of the Flies is an example, in my opinion, but if you think there is some glaring fallacy in that comparison, feel free to point it out.
The word bed actually looks like a bed.
