> > >I'd go with that. We seem to be moving closer to an agreed definition.
> > >All I've been driving at is that it cannot last long without degenerating
> > >into some form of society.
> > I wouldn't call that degeneration.
True, governments can degenerate into anarchy, but anarchy can only
evolve into something else much better, ie -- government.
> I used the word "degeneration" purely because if Anarchy is the aim, and thus
> the "higher" then any deviation from that means that the object has not been
> attained, and thus the "higher" "degenerates" (appologies for the excessive use
> of "quotes" :)
Americans have this nasty habit of failing to distinguish the difference
between freedom and anarchy. They are not the same thing. Anarchy
is the loss of freedom because it is "everybody for themself".
> > Quite the reverse in fact. I think a
> > stable society *would* evolve, that's the point I'm trying to make here.
> > It just needn't be one based around coercion.
> The qQuestiong, therefore, is: How would such a society (state?) evolve.
> That's what I think we need to look at.
Don't underestimate self-interest as a source of many laws and
morality. Most people have an unsuppresed empathy for others,
therefore they can relate to the pain that they would inflict on
others if they were to rob, rape, or kill other humans beings. Since
most people do not want to be robbed, raped, killed, or feel pain,
they agree on laws to make such behavior illegal.