I say the best possible government is the least possible government

So we are back to you wanting a society with no laws.

 

Well, no...it's illegal to own a shotgun less than 18 inches therefore your example is ridiculous. Just as it's illegal to murder. Just as it's illegal steal. Just as it's illegal to rape. Just admit you don't want ANY laws at all. You want society to be a free-for-all. Admitting it is the first step.

 

He can't seem to make up his mind

 

Exactly. The state kidnaps someone who has a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches. It's a criminal gang writ large.

 

Nope. A shotgun of that size is illegal therefore that person is breaking the law. Here's some advice...don't want to go to jail? Don't break the law. You're welcome!

 

Exactly. The gang issues orders and kidnaps those who disobey. A criminal gang writ large, as I said before.

 

Right...imagine that. Those who break the law are arrested and depending on the offense, jailed. Go figure.
Do you think those that break the law should just allowed to do so with no consequences? Do you believe someone who steals should be allowed to? Do you believe someone who murders another person should just be allowed to?

 

Not a mystery. The gang issues orders and they will attack those who disobey.

I think that the state is a criminal organization writ large.

Nope

Nope.

 

Correct, if one breaks the law that person will be arrested for breaking said law. And the issue is?

 

The issue is that the state is a criminal gang writ large

 

Ah...so the state is a criminal gang for arresting people who break the law. Got it...

 

Finally.

 

Right, so you DON'T want people arrested for murder, rape, stealing, etc. Got it.

 

False dichotomy bro

 

So then you DO want people arrested for breaking the law. Is that your final answer or are you going to continue to be wishy washy?

 

Amen, and again I say, Amen.

 

No, I want murders, rapists, and thieves to be held accountable for their actions.

 

ONLY murders, rapists and thieves? Interesting.

 

Only? I didn't say only. Did you add that all on your own?

 

This "?" indicates a question. Feel free to answer

 

I think he only wants people to be made accountable for laws he approves of.

 

Yes, they have and do exist. Probably the best example in the current day is the world community of States. There is no authority ruling over the sovereign countries of the world to make them play nice with each other. There are historical examples of societies like the ancient Irish Tuatha society that had a complex legal system (the Brehon Law) but no real ruling authorities. Their "Kings" were elected and were subject to the same rules as everyone else in the society. The Irish Tuatha existed for at least a thousand years. Other examples of nonstate societies are social and civic clubs that have rules but no authority to tax or enforce their rules by violence or threat of violence. The Shriners, The Elks Club and the VFW are examples of this kind of voluntary, non-coercive society.

 

And mostly they don't - which is in great part why they have legal systems to insure that their citizens play nice enough with each other that they can come together against another state which won't play nice.

Then how was it not a state?

Those are all quasi-sovereign entities, which depend for their security on a sovereign entity, so they're not comparable to sovereign states in this context.

 

That is irrelevant as well as incorrect. The world community of nations is an example of a non-state society that continues to exist and function. Most of the hundreds of nations around the world do work together to avoid violent conflict most of the time and in cases where one doesn't, like North Korea, the other independent sovereign nations cooperate with each other to try to keep them in check.

States have a monopoly on the use of force, taxation and arbitration. The Tuatha had no such powers. They had a common law established by the people through the history of arbitrations and traditions of the Brehon and a traditional society that followed the Brehon law at an individual level. The power the Tuatha had to enforce the rulings of the Brehon was to require the party that was ruled against to comply with the ruling. If the person failed to comply they were excluded from the society and suffered the lack of protection of the society. There were no jails and no capital punishment, though without the protection of the law, the injured party may have been at liberty to exact whatever retribution they chose.

The context was the question "Has a non-state society such as you(vaguely) describe ever actually existed?". Social clubs and civic organizations are a valid answer to the question. Further, such voluntary organizations demonstrate the capacity of people to cooperate voluntarily without threat of force to achieve goals and meet objectives.

The only valid reason to have a State that has coercive power is if humans are incapable of cooperating and living peacefully without being forced to do so. If it is true that humans are incapable of such cooperation, what makes the people that constitute the State capable of enforcing cooperation or cooperating among themselves? Are the ruling elite made of better stuff than the common citizen?

 

Wrong on both counts.

Which might be interesting were there not innumerable nonviolent methods of exerting malign influence on another country.

I suppose expecting you to realize your self-contradiction would be overly optimistic.

Which is of no moment whatever, obviously.

We have your pronouncement to that effect, but no reason to believe it.

No, the fact that some humans will inevitably be found wanting in that respect is a perfectly valid reason, obviously.