SAME lol

Social mores are flexible and easily bent to harm a perceived other, especially by those with larger bank accounts.

They are in a modern western democracy because too many people like you are raised by the state.

Was that the case in early 1900s America when black neighborhoods were burned for having too much money?

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 17 2020 11:20am

Are you using a decadent western democracy as an example of positive social mores after I just derided western democracies for their death of social mores?

This post was edited by Santara on Jan 17 2020 11:26am

Dont play dumb lol. I could pick any location pretty much anywhere in recorded history to make my point.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 17 2020 11:32am

And I can reply that every one of those societies has too much power vested in governing institutions.

or that even when "good" govts are in place they can still allow or actually be the perpetrators against "the other".


in any case this discussion seems to be missing a key step, what chance there is a society without a state falls into chaos. namely, whether self preservation is enough to prevent theft and violence bereft of laws. we know that with laws property theft and violence is still common, and while punishment is often lobbed on the perpetrator property doesnt always get returned and violence can't be undone, even through restorative justice.

what i find particularly tasty is that for years the same people arguing that without laws we will descend into chaos are the same that argue that without religion we won't fall into moral chaos, which in reality represents the same factors, theft and violence. why is it that one set of laws keeps people in check while the other is just brainwashing of the masses? i'd rather go to jail than hell, unless it's mexico then the distinction is moot.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 17 2020 11:48am

Cool, that's not the question though, and is also a dumb ideology when no matter what the circumstance you always come to the same conclusion.

aren't you in support of a state in all circumstances?