A society without law. Possible?

[Dotini]

I've read over a dozen books on "anarchy", so I guess you could say I'm something of an "armchair anarchist". Of course, I'm way too old and rich to ever get involved in any sort of anarchial activity or society, but the topic is of great interest. Firstly, there are so many wildly differing types and historical examples of anarchy and anarchists as to make the terms almost useless unless some time is spent referring to specifics.
Here's a quick opening glimpse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

We do not have a society in the first place without at least some law.

To be able to live together in a shared territory in relative safety, each individual must give up a portion of his own personal freedoms to do as he wants.

</polisci101>

Anarchy itself is a temporary condition.

Yeah, it's what you have while you're changing governments in Civilization II 👍

 

[RazorsEdge]

I don't believe that it works. Like someone said, go watch/read the "Lord of the Flies".

 

[lbsf1]

Hmmn, a society without organised law wouldn't work atall for the first bit (stealing,drugs,murder) and the such, however after that once the "novelty" has worn off people would take the law into their own hands and they would create their own law. Basicly starting from scratch again.

It is how we work to have punishment and morals, I can't see a world without even some kind of law/punishment even being possible.

 

[DK]

I cannot see how this will work. Those with the most guns will easily establish themselves as the ruling class. I think this is a lot like the criminal underworld - it is not bound by the laws of the state, and AFAIK the most vicious of the criminals usually rise to the top.

 

[Public'sTwin]

...Unless you "instate" a lawless society in Canada, in which case we'd just go door-to-door, collecting money for charities that support our old and sick (because capitalists have started a medical industry!), and&#8212;voila!&#8212;the inefficiency of such a non-institution becomes apparent, and we self-organise into another social-democratic parliament.

I'll let the rest of you decide what was satire.

 

[Hollow]

What if we eliminate all kinds of "emotions" a human feels, then anarchy could be achieved I guess?

 

[Villain]

What if we eliminate all kinds of "emotions" a human feels, then anarchy could be achieved I guess?

We live in a world of scarcity and there will always need to be rules governing the distribution resources - regardless of emotion.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Competition is inherent in people, and is a natural trait that was passed for more than a millenia since the beginning of time.

Laws are required since competition between people can get ugly and brutal.

That's my small philosophy on the matter.

 

[terminator363]

In other words, no.

 

[AlexGTV]

"If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored."

-Richard Dawkins


I find it funny because you can substitute population with productivity, because the efficiency and rate of resource turnover is the principal "survivor" factor in human society.

As such:

1910:
-"Oh here comes the car!. What a marvelous invention, now I can have more leisure time!"
BOSS: "You better be on time!"

1980
-"Wow, the PC will change my life. So much time will be saved with so many utitilies backed in one!"
BOSS: "See that screen? You will be looking at it for 8 hours."

1990
-"The cell phone will enable me to be in contact whenever, wherever. Great!"
BOSS: "Keep the cell phone activated at all times. Also report every 2 hours of the developments. (I also can screen your moves little bastard, so don't dare you!")

Ethic of story? Be a boss!

 

[Horde_R35]

World War 3 would break out at that instant! Or maybe a month or 2 later! We could never work without laws! We are animals, the laws are our leash!

 

[Lain]

A society without government-established written law is possible. A society without some kind of notion of what's acceptable and what's not isn't a society at all though. 👍

 

[Villain]

World War 3 would break out at that instant!

Between whom? Do you have anything serious to add or are you just trying to post in every thread you find? Please try to back up your opinions - this section of the forum doesn't exist for the purpose of trolling or inane banter.

 

[Horde_R35]

Between whom? Do you have anything serious to add or are you just trying to post in every thread you find? Please try to back up your opinions - this section of the forum doesn't exist for the purpose of trolling or inane banter.

Your the troll that always quote me with discontent and find always a way to be negative about it. If you dont like my posts just put me on the ignore list and be done with it.

A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a nation. This is the society we live in with all the laws and rules we have to follow. A society without law possible?! The law of the strongest would prevail and we would all kill each other! Inocent people die everyday by the hand of criminals. With no laws?! War would break out for sure!

 

[Lain]

But it is the law of the strongest that prevail today, only strength is measured with money nowadays.

You seem to assume that, if written laws were thrown out the window, all the strong people would turn into uncivilized brutes that would bully and conquer the weaker. Some might try, but the few that do would have to face everyone who deems such behavior as intolerable. Ignoring the existence of strong people who have good character, the number of weak or average individuals far outnumbers the exceptionally strong ones.

Written law is just crimes given an exact definition and an exact punishment. Without written law, there'd still be actions deemed socially unacceptable. And there would still be consequences.

 

[Villain]

If you dont like my posts just put me on the ignore list and be done with it.

Done.

 

[Horde_R35]

Done.

Attaboy! Finally!

 

[p-coletray]

Short answer=no.

Society is a word that means order, functionality, social structure. Every structure has laws. Gravity will be the law, material specifications, load requirements, and construction standards are met or else, well, just look at Haiti after the quake. Bad structure means failure.

 

[popcorn]

It would be impossible because bad people will turn the whole world into an anarchy. It would become an world like Mad Max.

 

[silentscore99z]

Ever seen the movie experiment? The people who are (or by cause of experiences in the past) criminals will rise to the top. The current scum of the earth, (druggies, alcoholics, pedos, religious extremists) will be kings and the good people (middle class working families) will suffer.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

With laws;

You have something I want (ex: a used TV) and I have something you want ($$$). We exchange our personal property with one another and all is well. Laws protect personal property & wealth so we can go about our lives how we wish.

No laws:

You have something I want (TV) and I have a gun. Your personal property is now mine and in return you get nothing...maybe a bullet or 2.

Now think about that on a grad scale. Throw in mob mentality, economic strife, and little consequences for one's action and you have modern day Zimbabwe. If a king, dictator, or elected politician can pick and choose which laws they will and will not obey and can choose who else can forgo laws; you have anarchy.

People getting killed over trial items happens on a daily basis...it's just that there are consequences with laws. Politicians disregard 'law' all the time and even make them up as they go along with little, if any, consequences. How's that not anarchy?

Get enough people to ignore laws and they become meaningless. Your garden variety 3rd world ****-hole is an example of such.

But as long as the right to life & the right to acquire private property are protected, things won't get too out of hand. As soon as your wealth is confiscated and spread around to whoever, then we got a problem.

 

[CAM]

In my opinion, society would still function properly, just not on such an advanced level as we are on today. I see it as a sort of isolated tribal system. Seeing as there would be no written law, therefore no written punishment, people would initially find the idea of committing inhumane or socially unacceptable acts appealing and end up doing them. However, those of good character would find these people unacceptable for society and establish a sort of spoken law condemning these people to whatever punishment deemed necessary. I relate it to the carrying capacity of an ecosystem in nature, the crime rate would rise (or be elevated compared to today's somewhat regulated justice system), but stay the same once the delinquents who committed the crimes were either: a) exiled, or b) executed. But it would never be able to drop as these same delinquents from other regions entered their own isolated society. So in conclusion, society would still work, just in a somewhat more primitive state. I hope that sounds as good as it did in my head..

 

[Blaze_409]

No society would falter and we would all kill ourselves in a never ending war for power......being serious......People don;t just function....they need someone above them otherwise they feel the need to be in charge.......if everyone feels the need to be in charge at the same time theres going to be a problem....

If you want to know a society without laws see a video on the amazon jungle lol....Its eat or be eaten......

 

[terminator363]

It would be like Death Wish, or maybe V for Vendetta either way, it won't work out.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I read up on some theories and came to the next, some people would like a:
Consequentialist non-propertarian anarchistic Libertarian way of living.

Consequentialist: the state does not protect you, see below
non-propertarian: anyone can use resources, citizens' assemblies manage
anarchistic: you do not need a state
Libertarian: people need to respect your freedom

But still I'm under the impression that the citizens assemblies, protecting the resources and freedoms of their members are in fact forming a "state" and "property".

 

[Ibonibo]

Ever seen the movie experiment? The people who are (or by cause of experiences in the past) criminals will rise to the top. The current scum of the earth, (druggies, alcoholics, pedos, religious extremists) will be kings and the good people (middle class working families) will suffer.

That's not what this movie was about or the actual experiment. It shows the experiment of Millgram, the thesis of burocratie (the right definition not the one publicly known).
And we are again in this exact same position and people are too dumb to understand it (how the police treated the occupy people as exemple).
Law is law, therfor it is surely right.
That's wrong.
Not every right is right!
This though is another discussion as it is way too big!

On the thread question: that is a bit of an oxymoron: a society is a group of individuals who agree on a common set of rules for a better living together.
A civilisation without any laws is not a society.
Therfor my answer is no.
Now do we need rules for every little step, a state tutoring us what and how to do?
That is the real question:
How have we gotten so many rules, that every step in the daily life is regulated? Why do we need that many rules? How could we simplify all this rules to a set of rules?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Now do we need rules for every little step, a state tutoring us what and how to do?
That is the real question:
How have we gotten so many rules, that every step in the daily life is regulated? Why do we need that many rules? How could we simplify all this rules to a set of rules?

Sounds like what theory seems to call Minarchism. Recognizing there is something needed, but it should be limited to:

protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures

 

[Dotini]

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

The study of law has challenged the Western mind for over two thousand years.

Hammurabi, the 6th King of Babylon, created the first known written codes of law about 4000 years ago.

But if you wish to study the Law of Primitive Man, anthropologists do that through the study of current primitive tribal societies and also ancient ones.

I suppose that even if we went back a million years, there would still have been laws and rules present among the societies that existed.

Even among Utopians and "anarchists", great store is set upon laws and rules.

So, I think the OP's question needs to be refined. Otherwise, the answer is a simple "No".

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Rich S]

One could make the argument that humans, given enough time to evolve biologically could function W/O rules.

There's a group of people called psychopaths who are very very difficult to socialize into being productive individuals, and even if they become "productive" one cant ensure they wont cause disaster at some point given any authoritative position.

Today it seems many people look up to psychopathic type people, ie (celebrities, TV personalities). That whole deal would have to shift dramatically, but the thing is no matter what style is looked up upon psychopaths will immediately pick up on & mimic faster than normal people. So their always "hip" to some degree. If it is cool to wear pants with holes in them & to never shave a psychopath can do that too!

It never ceases to amaze me the fans or suppoters of potentially psychopathic individuals, the way they support their hero when the hero is down. Many people would die for their hero, their hero would die for no one, but he'd readily kill others to save himself or simply make profit for himself. Or to simply entertain himself.