| sc94597 said:
|
Ad hierarchy:
Since we're not in disagreement over this, I'll drop it, then.
Ad voluntary participation in organisations:
That's all fine in theory. We basically have this now, only with the state and its branches as the only involuntary one... But do you see that as something that would produce more good than evil? Even today, when organizations are at least regulated by the state, there are huge levels of coercion, indoctrination and downright abuse associated with these "voluntary" organizations. If they weren't, don't you see those things rising immensely?
Ad abolishing the state:
Again, no disagreement here. It is possible to take down the state. Theoretically. I doubt it will ever happen, all with quality of life rising and all, and I don't want it to happen, but... still perfectly possible.
Ad conflict resolution:
There is one huge problem in your whole proposition: it expects everybody to be reasonable and fair, which is not (and simply cannot) be the case. If I've done something wrong, I *don't* want the issue to be resolved, it's against my best interests. In your first set of options, I can simply choose option 4: None of the above.
Actually, it also connects to the voluntary organizations point. Who can be this "judge"? Who can be relied upon to be impartial in a place where nobody can be prosecuted for anything or forced to do anything? And what if there's no one able to judge competently in a really complicated issue?
In fact, how do you even know who is supposed to be judged in the first place? In your scenario, both sides of the conflict are clear. What if they're not?
And finally, how do you deal with people who will not be deterred by any means from doing harm? How do you deal with psychopaths, insane people, extremists?
In short, your whole system stands on everyone being willing to cooperate. The second somebody isn't, it crumbles down.
Ad international justice:
I'm actually really glad you likened your system to the system of international justice, because I think the comparison is fitting. Does the way the world works on the international level strike you as just? The United States can literally do anything they want, because they have the strongest military and the (second) largest economy. They don't participate in many agreements where most of the international community particpate, they can't be convinced to limit pollution, to submit to the International Criminal Court, to prosecute war criminals, to stop invading sovereign countries or spying on people. They are the biggest kid in the playground and everybody has to deal with that. Where do the countries hurt by the U.S. foreign policy go to receive recompense? Does this strike you as just?
I'm just really perplexed by your bringing up international relations as something that goes perfectly and in a just manner... I don't think many people would claim this.
(And by the way, I'm not (very) anti-American and I'm not holding them responsible for anything - I'm merely stating facts.)
