A society without law. Possible?

[Hollow]

What if the world had no rules and laws whatsoever. Would we be able to still function as a society?

 

[Mike Rotch]

Go watch/ read 'Lord of the Flies'. Therein lies your answer.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Go watch/ read 'Lord of the Flies'. Therein lies your answer.

You didn't have the conch! Death to you!

 

[Joel]

Society/government exists to protect the rights of its citizens. The problem lies in physical strength and the large disparity between people. How could a man who is 5'5 and 140 lbs ever hope to keep his stuff if his 6'2 220 lb neighbour wants it?

 

[nk4e]

Didn't this happen in Bioshock aswell?

 

[niky]

Niven's "Cloak of Anarchy" is an interesting study in what happens when there's no law and no law enforcement.

The smallest of human social units, as well as more primitive ones, have no written laws per se, but there are always social conventions and rules in place that govern the behaviour of people towards one another.

Anyone who's ever been a parent knows that you have to set rules for children. Structure. Otherwise, their interaction with others will be severely compromised.

 

[Rykon Zero]

Well, even if you instate an anarchy, laws will begin popping up everywhere, I strongly believe that a very widely used law would be "An eye for an eye," which doles out justice and sates the appetite for revenge nicely.

So, in essence, the anarchy will work by mere virtue that we'll put in our own rules instead.

 

[Omnis]

There is always law, but a state isn't necessary. Read Hans Hermann Hoppe.

 

[niky]

Anarchy is unstable because it collapses into fascism way too easily.

 

[iKlipse]

Big post -_-

I wouldn't say Anarchy is unstable, its just like any other group. Most groups of Anarchy, KKK, Black Pride etc. They all have their own beliefs. Anarchists don't believe that we were born to follow a set of rules made by politician. That they are born free and will stay free, be able to survive by their own way of life. It doesn't all involve fire, destruction and death... Its about independence of their own self.

The KKK hate the blacks, browns and yellows because they are not native to their homeland. American History X shows that a Korean store owner hired a bunch of Mexicans without a working Visa, which involved a white guy from their neighborhood to lose his job. That's a great example for their existence.

The Blacks hate most of the white race, even the people who weren't born in the years when they were used as slaves. Most blacks these days have no valid reason to hate the white race, the whites have no valid reason to hate the black race. KKK/White Supremacist and Black Power groups are really the other thing that's dragging it on. Not including the average guys who just don't like each other because of skin color, but don't hold an actual strong reason as to why.

What I am saying is each state doesn't have to follow any laws, but for people to watch someones back in return for their back to be watched is something that will always be followed. Race related group can work but will make it unstable at the very same time. So they would need to either separate each other at a very good distance or work on a truce that will keep the peace, until someone steps out of line. When someone steps out of line, people notice and that person will lose all trust and will have to earn their right to be a valid part of their group. Therefore, there doesn't really need to be a law. A law is just another way for the Government to control the people, to make them do what the Government wants. If you look at it closely, to where all the laws lead, each law ends in the government reaping at least one benefit.

You're not allowed to murder a person. Yeah this is understandable, it would suck to be murdered. But the Government murder people all the time. The reason why they do not want people to kill each other is because one less person equals one less of their cut from tax.
This is why there are Police. Drugs would be legal if the Government found a way to produce it themselves, sell it over the counter and still look good to the citizens. But they won't look good to anyone selling Heroin so they don't make it legal, they don't benefit anything out of a street dealer so they will send the Police over to raid him and take what the Government doesn't want him making money off of.

I'm guessing we have all had a job where we get paid "Cash In Hand".
Why isn't that illegal? Its the same as dealing drugs, with out drugs. Because the government can't stop a person working, they do still benefit out of Cash In Hand workers, but for a drug dealer who holds a substance which can be worth $600 and a build up of that turning into $1,800 in less than a month... That person is "trading" money for drugs and is getting a pay rise each time. Government usually don't get money out of a drug dealer because of this, the drug dealers need that that they are building up to buy more to supply to more. They won't use that money on bills or petrol for their car, yeah they will have a little bit to the side if they get stuck and maybe to buy one or two things every now and then that they like... But its way less $$$ given to the government than an average working class person.

Now if there was no money invented... There would be no technology because no one can be bothered working, unless it was a passion. We would be living like tribes, watching someones back so our back is watched in return.

A society without law can and will work, but a strong society needs a Government with corruption and a currency to keep the sea saw stable.

 

[nk4e]

Big post -_-

I wouldn't say Anarchy is unstable, its just like any other group. Most groups of Anarchy, KKK, Black Pride etc. They all have their own beliefs. Anarchists don't believe that we were born to follow a set of rules made by politician. That they are born free and will stay free, be able to survive by their own way of life. It doesn't all involve fire, destruction and death... Its about independence of their own self.

If you were given logical arguments that made sense, would have you followed them?

The KKK hate the blacks, browns and yellows because they are not native to their homeland. American History X shows that a Korean store owner hired a bunch of Mexicans without a working Visa, which involved a white guy from their neighborhood to lose his job. That's a great example for their existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KtUN9VZ9_8
The KKK believed in a superior race. That scene in American history X told the viewer that the old owner was bought out, maybe business didn't run so well? The main character also ranted that the previous workers were fired and the manager rehired but he mainly targeted illegal immigrants. We don't know if those people are actually illegal, we just assumed because we are told.

What I am saying is each state doesn't have to follow any laws, but for people to watch someones back in return for their back to be watched is something that will always be followed. Race related group can work but will make it unstable at the very same time. So they would need to either separate each other at a very good distance or work on a truce that will keep the peace, until someone steps out of line. When someone steps out of line, people notice and that person will lose all trust and will have to earn their right to be a valid part of their group. Therefore, there doesn't really need to be a law. A law is just another way for the Government to control the people, to make them do what the Government wants. If you look at it closely, to where all the laws lead, each law ends in the government reaping at least one benefit.

Keep calm, carry on

You're not allowed to murder a person. Yeah this is understandable, it would suck to be murdered. But the Government murder people all the time. The reason why they do not want people to kill each other is because one less person equals one less of their cut from tax.

We are not allow to murder a person because the right is not justified. There is no money involved in this and it is expensive to pay for a funeral. We as civil beings are brought up to separate good from bad, not because the government told us that we can't do it.

Drugs would be legal if the Government found a way to produce it themselves, sell it over the counter and still look good to the citizens. But they won't look good to anyone selling Heroin so they don't make it legal, they don't benefit anything out of a street dealer so they will send the Police over to raid him and take what the Government doesn't want him making money off of.

Would you want some high dollars for less hours that is tax free? The Government needs its people in order to run, how could there be a kingdom go without its king?

I'm guessing we have all had a job where we get paid "Cash In Hand".
Why isn't that illegal? Its the same as dealing drugs, with out drugs. Because the government can't stop a person working, they do still benefit out of Cash In Hand workers, but for a drug dealer who holds a substance which can be worth $600 and a build up of that turning into $1,800 in less than a month... That person is "trading" money for drugs and is getting a pay rise each time.

Though that $600 could possibly mean your life

Government usually don't get money out of a drug dealer because of this, the drug dealers need that that they are building up to buy more to supply to more. They won't use that money on bills or petrol for their car, yeah they will have a little bit to the side if they get stuck and maybe to buy one or two things every now and then that they like... But its way less $$$ given to the government than an average working class person.

I always though the drug dealers were big ballers..Biggie Smalls was one, Frank Lucas was one, Al Capone was one.

Now if there was no money invented... There would be no technology because no one can be bothered working, unless it was a passion. We would be living like tribes, watching someones back so our back is watched in return.

We would probably still be trading items for other items in return. Like how a job would be, you give your services in return for money.

A society without law can and will work, but a strong society needs a Government with corruption and a currency to keep the sea saw stable.

Tell that to the Philippines and various countries...

 

[Lizard]

Read the stages of comunism the final stage would effectively be exactly this.
It wouldnt work though I dont think.

 

[AOS-]

Not possible because humans still behave immaturely.

 

[livemusic]

There is always law, but a state isn't necessary. Read Hans Hermann Hoppe.

Personally I don't think a private laws' society would work because different courts would use different rules to judge. I think it's necessary to have a central unit that dictates what set of rules should be used by security agencies. I have no problem with these agencies being privately owned though.

 

[Omnis]

The set of rules is the law. Courts don't have to be a state monopoly because both parties would have to agree on the judge anyway.

I've always thought free courts were a fascinating subject and I don't know why they aren't used more. (Actually, I do know-- why wouldn't the state want to run the court?)

 

[Danoff]

The proper role of government is to enforce human rights. Anarchy (lack of government) inherently permits human rights violations. This is a poor starting condition. Anarchists will say that any form of government allows human rights violations, and perhaps there is traction in that argument. But some forms of government at least address the issue in principle. Anarchy starts out giving up.

 

[Keef]

There is always law, but a state isn't necessary. Read Hans Hermann Hoppe.

I was going to ask what sort of law he meant. As long as we humans have our capacity to think, then natural law always exists.

 

[Hollow]

I was going to ask what sort of law he meant. As long as we humans have our capacity to think, then natural law always exists.

Natural law as in moral beliefs?

 

[Omnis]

The proper role of government is to enforce human rights. Anarchy (lack of government) inherently permits human rights violations. This is a poor starting condition. Anarchists will say that any form of government allows human rights violations, and perhaps there is traction in that argument. But some forms of government at least address the issue in principle. Anarchy starts out giving up.

There's too much vagueness or ambiguity with these terms because Anarchy and Government can mean so many things. These kinds of discussions are hard to have because of it. Hoppe calls your idealized government Private Law Societies, for example. I suppose each society would be its own city state, or they could confederate up to however large they'd get while the rules could still be maintained.

Natural law as in moral beliefs?

No, natural law as in what the rules are such that conflict is avoided and human rights are not violated in any way. Below are Hoppe's 4 basic rules.

1. Every person is the private (exclusive) owner of his own physical body. Indeed, who else, if not Crusoe, should be the owner of Crusoe's body? Friday? Or Crusoe and Friday jointly? Yet that would not help avoid conflict. Rather, it would create conflict and make it permanent.

2. Every person is the private owner of all nature-given goods that he has perceived as scarce and put to use by means of his body, before any other person. Again, who else, if not the first user, should be their owner? The second user? Or the first and the second user jointly? Yet such rulings again would be contrary to the very purpose of norms: of helping to avoid conflict, rather than to create it.

3. Every person who, with the help of his body and his originally appropriated goods, produces new products thereby becomes the proper owner of these products, provided only that in the process of production he does not physically damage the goods owned by another person.

4. Once a good has been first appropriated or produced, ownership in it can be acquired only by means of a voluntary, contractual transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.

 

[livemusic]

But Hoppe argues that the Private Law Society (which should follow natural rights) can be achieved without an enforced central legislation, that the free market will solve it. I can't see how everybody would agree to base judgement on natural rights without enforcement.

 

[Omnis]

Well I could imagine that there would be strong social and economic punishment. Nobody would trade or interact with a fraud or a murderer. They would be effectively exiled from the society. And the absence of a state doesn't mean the absence of, say, warrants for arrest by whomever is willing to contract to do it, authorized by judges in good standing with the community.

Thinking about this on my own, I guess I'd call it a modular government. That is, people live freely until someone breaks the rules. After that happens, the community cooperates to bring about justice.

 

[Danoff]

Well I could imagine that there would be strong social and economic punishment. Nobody would trade or interact with a fraud or a murderer. They would be effectively exiled from the society. And the absence of a state doesn't mean the absence of, say, warrants for arrest by whomever is willing to contract to do it, authorized by judges in good standing with the community.

Thinking about this on my own, I guess I'd call it a modular government. That is, people live freely until someone breaks the rules. After that happens, the community cooperates to bring about justice.

What actually happens in these societies is that the guy with the most guns takes over... and I don't see how that can be avoided without some sort of entity that is more powerful who's charter is to enforce rights.

 

[Keef]

What actually happens in these societies is that the guy with the most guns takes over... and I don't see how that can be avoided without some sort of entity that is more powerful who's charter is to enforce rights.

Sadly, I agree that in a society without definite rules and a limited government to protect rights, democracy could be the central force in making decisions, because there has never been a case throughout history where people consciously consider and obey natural law and everybody gets along just fine.

Omnis, you know that a certain amount of order is required for society to function fairly for everyone. There are very many things that can be taken care of by individuals and the market, but there must be an institution in place to back up these natural rights just in case somebody decides to break then.

Humans are pretty clever creatures - we come up with stupid ideas just as easily as smart ideas. Even in a perfect utopia you can bet the farm that somebody will do something stupid. If you piss enough people off by doing something stupid, you can guarantee that those people will come up with some stupid punishment. It wouldn't take long for either an oligarchic or democratic society to spring up - both of which are terrible ideas conjured by us humans.

 

[drivehard]

This is what a society with no rules or laws looks like. All rules and laws are illusory. If everything went to absolute anarchy it would only be a matter of time before more illusions appeared in place. As a previous poster has said. What society is at this moment is no different then a simple plant rising towards the sun fighting for its share of nourishment. Hence the absolute absence of reasonable solutions to our modern problems.

 

[Villain]

What if the world had no rules and laws whatsoever. Would we be able to still function as a society?

In other words, no.

============

Nobody would trade or interact with a fraud or a murderer. They would be effectively exiled from the society.

Except if the murderer/fraud had a monopoly (on anything - labor, protection, a specific good/service, etc.). That's how anarchy morphs into monarchy/fascism. People like to group up and the cream rises to the top.

Everyone alone ---> Friends bond together ---> Gangs ---> Larger gangs (tribes/clans/cartels?) ---> Armies ---> State.

Birds of a feather stick together and eventually someone takes over (or as history calls it, "unifies" everyone). 👍

 

[Joel]

This is what a society with no rules or laws looks like. All rules and laws are illusory. If everything went to absolute anarchy it would only be a matter of time before more illusions appeared in place. As a previous poster has said. What society is at this moment is no different then a simple plant rising towards the sun fighting for its share of nourishment. Hence the absolute absence of reasonable solutions to our modern problems.

If I go out and kill someone tomorrow, I'll go to jail. Jail isn't an illusion.

 

[niky]

"Anarchist organization" is an oxymoron.

 

[Keef]

Anarchy itself is a temporary condition.

 

[Omnis]

"Anarchist organization" is an oxymoron.

No it isn't. Chaos is anarchy, but anarchy isn't chaos.

 

[niky]

No, not that (though I agree...) it's just that from the mission statement, anarchists don't want to be led... and yet organize themselves into groups with an identifiable leadership in order to achieve their goals.