• lugal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Today, the whole world is divided into states but state abolismists want concepts like transformative justice that tries to undo the root of a problem, not just the symptoms.

    Also: stateless doesn’t mean no order at all, but it’s about hierarchy free systems

      • Val@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is an entity for keeping order. Its called a community. Everyone protects everyone because everyone knows everyone because everyone needs everyone. If you step out of line people won’t protect you.

        Stateless societies existed for millennia before all the states came along and enslaved them. They had order because strong personal relationships maintain order without leaders.

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Surprise: as soon as you form a community, the most dependable members become a governing core. What the fuck do you think a “village elder” is?

          Also, what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land? There’s no governing body to mediate, so village A simply attacks B.

          • Val@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            the most dependable members become a governing core.

            Yes, and that governing core does not have complete authority over the village, They are trusted members of the community and if they abuse their powers they get removed.

            This is exactly the kind of order you want. The people that have put the most effort into the community naturally want what’s best for that community, and if they are trusted that means they are more likely to be kind and nice people and not greedy.

            what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land?

            The best option is for village A to send a delegation to B and voice their concerns. After which village B decides what to do.

            Just like people do not need to be governed, groups (in this conversation villages) do not as well. They should have enough common sense to do things peacefully because if they become hostile all the other groups band together to oppose them. The same dynamics are at play.

                • Gabu@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That it’d be great if we lived in a fluffy world of perfection, but in the real world, things aren’t quite as simple. You can never assume an actor is or even desires do be logical, nor that people will gladly behave with others’ interest at heart