BCSbunk wrote:
O-Trap wrote:
BCSbunk wrote:
It would not be idealistic nor a utopia. There are examples of this in existence on a smaller scale. The Piraha tribe is one of many examples with no governors of any kind yet they have laws that they enforce themselves.
Now you can claim that it would fail on a larger scale, but it has not been done on a larger scale. However there are examples now of societies with laws without a governing force to dictate.
There would still be crime as is today and it is not utopia, I agree that no one has right to extend authority over others that are not violating the harm principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
Government is not necessary entity, it is a contingent entity.
A couple questions.
Why base it on the harm principle?
Who determines what does and does not violate the harm principle in the case of disagreement on the subject? More specifically, who gets to determine what constitutes "harm" and what constitutes "cause?" As I recall, these are never answered by Mill.
What prevents a mob mentality from causing the people to act in defiance of such law?
What prevents an individual from amassing the means to force others to become subject to his will? Essentially, what prevents such a society from becoming a "he-who-has-the-biggest-guns-wins" society, where a single person, or a small group are able to put themselves in a position of power with the use of force?
Why base it on the harm principle?
I am not sure I understand your question what do you mean base it off the harm principle?
What I mean is, why use the harm principle as the plum line for what should and shouldn't be acceptable behavior?
BCSbunk wrote:What prevents a mob mentality from causing the people to act in defiance of such law?
What prevents an individual from amassing the means to force others to become subject to his will? Essentially, what prevents such a society from becoming a "he-who-has-the-biggest-guns-wins" society, where a single person, or a small group are able to put themselves in a position of power with the use of force?
Education and upbringing. The same as the Piraha tribe. The societal bonds would be strong because of education even stronger than the Piraha because of technology. People would not want to in defiance of the laws because that fractures society. Again this would not be in an absolute sense as no system can eliminate crime competely.
My biggest argument is that government is not a necessary truth but a contingent one as there are societies that exist and are "successful" (open to debate) in the world.
Excuse my skepticism, but quite honestly, it would seem that some of the most educated people in the world have done things that would be considered highly unethical, and would certainly not be considered to have passed the harm principle. While I think education is very important, I don't think it is the end-all of ethical problems in society.
As far as upbringing, I don't think I trust that either. Any movement throughout history which defied the vastly accepted social norm typically starts with very few people ... sometimes even one person.
As far as social pressures to not fracture society, it would appear difficult to control how selfish a person actually is (which of course, may or may not align with how selfish one comes across). Given the innate instinct of self-preservation, I have a feeling that when push comes to shove, instinct will eventually overtake societal pressures, if not in everyone, at least in some.
Plus, most of the developed countries in the world are increasingly individualistic as opposed to communal, placing the importance of the individual over the importance of the community. The United States is a perfect example of this.
Also, what prevents it from becoming what is depicted in the Simon Pegg film "Hot Fuzz" where the people become SO focused on preserving the strength of the community that the rights of an individual get trampled by the perceived "greater good?" If social bonds are of such importance, I'm suspecting that a society will protect the bonds between the majority, even if at the expense of the minority.
Finally, given the self-focused nature of humanity, I'd be willing to bet that any appearance of an importance placed on a societal greater good will only go as far as the appearance. What I mean is this: If a person realizes that he can do something selfish while maintaining the strength of his own bonds within the community (essentially, not get caught), he would likely do it. It would be having his cake, and eating it, too.
Ultimately, while not a Utopia, I think this could, and thus would, be far too unstable, granting far too much trust to each member of the society. One bad apple would upset the cart, and with the number of apples in some of the larger countries, there is almost no chance that there wouldn't be plenty of bad apples.
As far as success of such communities, I'm not necessarily certain that's even up for debate, as "successful" is virtually an arbitrary word. Probably a more universal one would be "functional" or "possible for perpetuation."
