3 ms·

That assumes that the presence of lawful order makes things better, which is sort of the whole question this article is about. You can construct a pretty good

by geofft 6y ago

That assumes that the presence of lawful order makes things better, which is sort of the whole question this article is about. You can construct a pretty good argument that, say, absent the structures of "lawful order" around which large corporations grow, fewer people would be driving hours to work each day, drinking water out of plastic bottles, flying across the country on business trips, producing pesticides in Bhopal, piling up ammonium nitrate in Beirut, etc. I think most of us as individuals could lead happy and fulfilling lives and contributing to the advancement of humanity without any of that.

eyko 6y ago
"I think most of us as individuals could lead happy and fulfilling lives and contributing to the advancement of humanity without any of that." Your assumption is that we led happy and fulfilling lives before what we now call society, which is false. Bad harvest years would routinely decimate communities. Hunger also drove people to steal from others, many times violently (kill, rape, and ransack), and in the best case where they only stole your food, you were now left to starve because a famine affects everyone, and the victims were already on rations as it were. Local spots of violence in the struggle for the very few resources that we had were very common place. As societies evolved, such conflicts for resources became more necessarily more complex (think bands, think small militias, think city-state armies, think all out war). The main misconception I tend to see people have is that they somehow believe that our current condition is somehow different from the condition we were in. As if society was imposed on us and we became bad. We are society. Be it a community of ten or a community of a thousand. Good an evil are both sides of the same coin, it's just our nature.
- geofft 6y ago
  > Your assumption is that we led happy and fulfilling lives before what we now call society, which is false. No, that's not my assumption, and I'm confused why you think it is. I'm simply saying that I, right now, in our current state of society, am not driving a car to work or buying water bottles in my current happy and fulfilling life, and the only reason I did that previously (and might do so in the future) is because a corporation backed by our current form of government made it so that I needed to do that to have a happy and fulfilling life. I didn't say anything about the state of humanity before modern society. You make some good points, but I don't think they have much to do with this particular discussion. You may well be raising a different good objection to anarchism, but it's not the objection I'm responding to.
elindbe2 6y ago
Maybe. Or maybe a band of like-minded people get together, arm themselves and take over the "individuals leading happy and fulfilling lives", declaring themselves monarchs and killing all those who oppose them.
- geofft 6y ago
  Sure, that's a reasonable objection to anarchism, but that's also not particularly relevant to the question of whether individuals on their own will harm our planet, I think?
mwcampbell 6y ago
But laws also enable rights for minorities, which the majority isn't free to trample over or ignore. To take one example that's particularly close to my heart, laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act can compel corporations to make their products and services accessible even if they'd rather not. I think I and many of my friends wouldn't have nearly as happy and fulfilling lives if not for that.

by geofft 6y ago

eyko 6y ago

"I think most of us as individuals could lead happy and fulfilling lives and contributing to the advancement of humanity without any of that." Your assumption is that we led happy and fulfilling lives before what we now call society, which is false. Bad harvest years would routinely decimate communities. Hunger also drove people to steal from others, many times violently (kill, rape, and ransack), and in the best case where they only stole your food, you were now left to starve because a famine affects everyone, and the victims were already on rations as it were. Local spots of violence in the struggle for the very few resources that we had were very common place. As societies evolved, such conflicts for resources became more necessarily more complex (think bands, think small militias, think city-state armies, think all out war). The main misconception I tend to see people have is that they somehow believe that our current condition is somehow different from the condition we were in. As if society was imposed on us and we became bad. We are society. Be it a community of ten or a community of a thousand. Good an evil are both sides of the same coin, it's just our nature.

geofft 6y ago
> Your assumption is that we led happy and fulfilling lives before what we now call society, which is false. No, that's not my assumption, and I'm confused why you think it is. I'm simply saying that I, right now, in our current state of society, am not driving a car to work or buying water bottles in my current happy and fulfilling life, and the only reason I did that previously (and might do so in the future) is because a corporation backed by our current form of government made it so that I needed to do that to have a happy and fulfilling life. I didn't say anything about the state of humanity before modern society. You make some good points, but I don't think they have much to do with this particular discussion. You may well be raising a different good objection to anarchism, but it's not the objection I'm responding to.

elindbe2 6y ago

Maybe. Or maybe a band of like-minded people get together, arm themselves and take over the "individuals leading happy and fulfilling lives", declaring themselves monarchs and killing all those who oppose them.

geofft 6y ago
Sure, that's a reasonable objection to anarchism, but that's also not particularly relevant to the question of whether individuals on their own will harm our planet, I think?

mwcampbell 6y ago

But laws also enable rights for minorities, which the majority isn't free to trample over or ignore. To take one example that's particularly close to my heart, laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act can compel corporations to make their products and services accessible even if they'd rather not. I think I and many of my friends wouldn't have nearly as happy and fulfilling lives if not for that.