<p>@ThatOneWeirdGuy </p>
<p>I really think you aren’t getting the necessity for a perfect world for this to work. Even if you were to manage a vast majority, it only takes one strong leader to get a following and institute whatever he wants. That’s the danger I’m referencing. All of this ignoring the fact that a cultural change is not widespread like that. A whole society will never all have and teach their children the same beliefs. What you are working in is a utopian environment, and that will make almost any social organization work.</p>
<p>I have plenty of reasons to doubt the attainability of a society where everyone agrees on an ideology and works under it. That’s pretty obvious. What reasons do you have for thinking that getting to this point is remotely possible? </p>
<p>Also, one simply can’t ignore the clash of individualism and voluntarism. That’s a huge inconsistency that marks this as impossible to me. What gets beyond this?</p>
<p>I agree with the agricultural model you described, but you are leaving out key details. The surplus you described is the exact stability I am referring to. Stability and safety from other tribes. And since then we have progressed and continued with that. See Roman citizenship. Yes, the idea of the social contract came later, but it explained why people would want a governing force, and then how to better shape it, which is what most of political philosophy has been based in since.</p>
<p>All the problems you are talking are international problems. When governments fight with each other. The first and most realistic step is to actually do what you first suggested, and get a community mentality worldwide, perhaps within each country to start. If the government stopped fighting each other and worked to help humans as I have argued is its purpose, then we wouldn’t have those problems.</p>
<p>The international problems stem from ideas that human culture is turning around very quickly. The best political minds out there right now are in agreement that globalization is key and the next thing up, even the power hungry ones. Once there is a fully cooperative global community, then we can begin to organize and shape the system.</p>
<p>As far as DRO’s, is that not the same monopoly of the initiation of force over the rest of humans? I agree completely with why it would not be allowed, but here we have a group with the very thing you are trying to avoid.</p>
<p>I’m not saying humans are bad. I’m saying not all humans are good. You can’t group all of humanity into a lump and say they will all have empathy and rational thought. That is the utopia and perfection I am talking about. There has never been a time in the world where people have come close to all being honest, empathetic, and rational people. You have provided no argument or means to get to that point, and you will eventually realize the implausible nature of your utopia.</p>
<p>Once again, humans aren’t terrible. You keep making that black and white distinction of good and bad. It doesn’t work that way. But yes, some people end up being a negative force against others. And their hunger for power does draw them to government. They wouldn’t stop existing in your world either though. Only now, they have the power to get a following and take over. Once again, the danger I am talking about, if we were to ever get to this point. The instability and lack of safety that we avoid with government.</p>