Communism: Can it work in large societies?

[ilikebacon3000]

I was having a discussion with a friend, which was simply about private property, and whether or not it is "right" to let it happen in society. It ended up going into me being like "Oh, well, I think private property is bad blah blah blah. Everything should be common, no classes, and we should all work towards making our society united" and so I was basically describing a basic communist society without actually saying the words communist and society.
He proceeded to say that Communism wouldn't work in a large society such as the US because of the fact that it is based off of the idea that we should have NO classes, and in the US or something like it, with as many jobs and people as there are, there is no way for this to happen. On top of that, he labeled Socialism as essentially being "Big Country Communism".
What do you guys think?

Also, I don't want you guys thinking my friend is an idiot. He is actually an Anarchist, and is very very left. I just want some input on this idea he has put forward. I sorta agree with it... Because think about it... We have MILLIONS of people in the US. MILLIONS. How in the world can we completely eliminate economic classes? It seems to be quite an impossible feat to accomplish, and even if it were to be accomplished, I think that it would simply fall apart after a period of time.
I do not know much about socialism to be honest... Educate me?

Thanks.
Bacon.

[AK]

I was having a discussion with a friend, which was simply about private property, and whether or not it is "right" to let it happen in society. It ended up going into me being like "Oh, well, I think private property is bad blah blah blah. Everything should be common, no classes, and we should all work towards making our society united" and so I was basically describing a basic communist society without actually saying the words communist and society.
He proceeded to say that Communism wouldn't work in a large society such as the US because of the fact that it is based off of the idea that we should have NO classes, and in the US or something like it, with as many jobs and people as there are, there is no way for this to happen. On top of that, he labeled Socialism as essentially being "Big Country Communism".
What do you guys think?

Also, I don't want you guys thinking my friend is an idiot. He is actually an Anarchist, and is very very left. I just want some input on this idea he has put forward. I sorta agree with it... Because think about it... We have MILLIONS of people in the US. MILLIONS. How in the world can we completely eliminate economic classes? It seems to be quite an impossible feat to accomplish, and even if it were to be accomplished, I think that it would simply fall apart after a period of time.
I do not know much about socialism to be honest... Educate me?

Thanks.
Bacon.
How can your Anarchist friend be an Anarchist if he thinks a global classless stateless society is impossible to attain?

Also, he doesn't seem to be defining classes in the way that we do. We define class by their relation to production. Classes and class barriers themselves don't attribute much to the functioning of society so much as they isolate groups of people from others in terms of wealth and living conditions. By bringing down the class barriers then all we are doing is creating a fair society where peoples' living conditions are near equal and their wages are fair in accordance to their work.

[Muzk]

How can your Anarchist friend be an Anarchist if he thinks a global classless stateless society is impossible to attain?

Anarchists want to split the working class into communes rather than uniting it, didn't you know?!
Any objections?

As for your friend, tell him that the divison of labor and the natural division of resources makes it ultimately neccessary to have a world republic. That's why his anarcho-communes can't exist alone either, so he didn't really think past the "communists suck!" part of anarkkkists.

[AK]

Anarchists want to split the working class into communes rather than uniting it, didn't you know?!

Any objections?
I'm a noob when it comes to Anarchism but this seems shifty even to me. So no I didn't know.

Seriously?

[ilikebacon3000]

How can your Anarchist friend be an Anarchist if he thinks a global classless stateless society is impossible to attain?

Also, he doesn't seem to be defining classes in the way that we do. We define class by their relation to production. Classes and class barriers themselves don't attribute much to the functioning of society so much as they isolate groups of people from others in terms of wealth and living conditions. By bringing down the class barriers then all we are doing is creating a fair society where peoples' living conditions are near equal and their wages are fair in accordance to their work.

Do Anarchism and Communism have to co-exist?

He does define them by means of production. The conversation was on another message board... I might just go find it and post it, or at least re-read it... Hold on.
"Communism isn't meant to work in a large society. it is the most radical form of socialism. other forms, such as syndicalism and just straight forward socialism, are actually compatible with large societies. communism is too anti-individual to work on a large scale. there's nothing wrong with that. nothing wrong with small societies run on a 100% cooperative basis. that's basically what Amish societies are. but as the Amish themselves have shown, what they do is not something that works on a large scale, and members leave all the time. mutual aid needs to find it's balance with individualism for a large scale voluntary socialist society to function well"
That's his exact words.
Input?

[ilikebacon3000]

Anarchists want to split the working class into communes rather than uniting it, didn't you know?!
Any objections?

As for your friend, tell him that the divison of labor and the natural division of resources makes it ultimately neccessary to have a world republic. That's why his anarcho-communes can't exist alone either, so he didn't really think past the "communists suck!" part of anarkkkists.


Agreed (first part).

Wait a minute... I thought the majority of leftists were against globalization. By having a world economy, isn't that simply just creating a new world order type bullshit where there is no market? I mean think about it... If everyone was paid EXACTLY the same, then what would be the point in working? Why work? Why not just take care of each other as human beings? When the demand is lower then the supply, it should be free.
housing should be free.
food=free.
water=free.
electricity=free.
Equal access to the internet in every community=free.
All of this and so much more SHOULD be free. Why isn't it? (sorry. I got on a ramble)

[Muzk]

HAHAHAHAHA comparing communism with some backwards living, beard-wearing religious nuts!


I'm a noob when it comes to Anarchism but this seems shifty even to me. So no I didn't know.

Seriously?As far as I know, yes


other forms, such as syndicalism and just straight forward socialism, are actually compatible with large societies. He doesn't seem to know that socialism is communism with classes... (as a quick explanation) -_-

communism is too anti-individual to work on a large scale. there's nothing wrong with that. nothing wrong with small societies run on a 100% cooperative basis.Anarchist talking about capitalist individualism?! Why is it ok for him to have anarchist communes co existing with capitalism but not a full worker's democracy?
He doesn't make much sense, since anarchism only works on a large scale too, since the communes have to trade with one another -_-


Do Anarchism and Communism have to co-exist?


Uhm I didn't mean it like that, I meant that anarcho communes need MORE anarcho communes... y'know?

[ilikebacon3000]

He doesn't seem to know that socialism is communism with classes... (as a quick explanation) -_-
Anarchist talking about capitalist individualism?! Why is it ok for him to have anarchist communes co existing with capitalism but not a full worker's democracy?
(newb question) How does it co-exist with Capitalism? Remember that capitalism is not a free market, it simply means right to ownership... Ah shit.. And Free Enterprise. Well, I'm not sure if it would be co-existing with it because I would think in most Anarchist communes, there would be no ownership, but there would be free trade. I see nothing wrong with that.

He doesn't make much sense, since anarchism only works on a large scale too, since the communes have to trade with one another -_-



Uhm I didn't mean it like that, I meant that anarcho communes need MORE anarcho communes... y'know?

Well, anarcho communes don't necessarily NEED more communes as long as they are in a place which has a stable source of water, room to grow crops, and enough people to support each other, or at least I think...

[Muzk]

I'll just put this into another post...


By having a world economy, isn't that simply just creating a new world order type bullshit where there is no market?
No, it means we have the means to give every human being a live worth living.


I mean think about it... If everyone was paid EXACTLY the same, then what would be the point in working? Why work? Why not just take care of each other as human beings? When the demand is lower then the supply, it should be free.
housing should be free.
In socialism you get paid according to your contribution, not equal to everyone else. In communism(the higher form of socialism), since wages are abolished, you can't be paid with money, but by satisfying your needs.


food=free.
water=free.
electricity=free.
Equal access to the internet in every community=free.
All of this and so much more SHOULD be free. Why isn't it? (sorry. I got on a ramble)
They are not because some parasites are making money off of them.

In socialism, we have to produce such things too, so we need people producing, then again they need wages...

In communism, since planning and education is perfect, work will be seen as an enjoyment, as a part of everyones life. Everyone would be able to be given the goods and services needed to satisfy their needs!

[Muzk]

(newb question) How does it co-exist with Capitalism? Remember that capitalism is not a free market, it simply means right to ownership... Ah shit.. And Free Enterprise. Well, I'm not sure if it would be co-existing with it because I would think in most Anarchist communes, there would be no ownership, but there would be free trade. I see nothing wrong with that.

I counted 1 on 1 together by taking your friends message seriously. He is against a large society, yet anarchism can only exist on a large scale.



Well, anarcho communes don't necessarily NEED more communes as long as they are in a place which has a stable source of water, room to grow crops, and enough people to support each other, or at least I think...
The living standard would still be pretty low, you need medicine, different food, etc, etc... a high living standard for every human is our goal.

Slower replies please...

[Muzk]

Free trade is evil, it gives one commune the means to accumulate (build) more capital than the other.

I'm very sceptical of the concept that one commune observes the other for security...

[ilikebacon3000]

I'll just put this into another post...





In socialism you get paid according to your contribution, not equal to everyone else.
Okay! What is wrong with that? Why shouldn't you get how much you put in? I am about to raise the same question which has been asked to me many times simply because I label myself as a leftist of sorts: Why should a doctor make the same as someone who does an easy job? I mean.... Okay. I put that wrong. Your salary shouldn't be defined by what you do, but more by how much you work and how well you do it.
Those who are unable to work (invalids, children, etc) would be taken care of.



communism, since planning and education is perfect, work will be seen as an enjoyment, as a part of everyones life. Everyone would be able to be given the goods and services needed to satisfy their needs!

How can education be perfect? How can anything be perfect by anyone's standards? Because no matter what, what is perfect to 90& of society, will be questioned by 10% of society (which is what is occurring now, here on Revleft! We are the 10%). So what are you going to do? Simply kill those who question? (This is a serious question. I am here to hopefully learn something new. I don't wanna start a flame war! So my bad :()

[ilikebacon3000]

Free trade is evil, it gives one commune the means to accumulate (build) more capital than the other.

I'm very sceptical of the concept that one commune observes the other for security...

It's the commune of lesser capital's fault for making a bad trade then, isn't it?

[ilikebacon3000]

Slower replies please...

Yes, Please people. This site moves incredibly fast compared to the 30-person hiphop/political message board I am also on...

[Muzk]

Okay! What is wrong with that? Why shouldn't you get how much you put in? I am about to raise the same question which has been asked to me many times simply because I label myself as a leftist of sorts: Why should a doctor make the same as someone who does an easy job? I mean.... Okay. I put that wrong. Your salary shouldn't be defined by what you do, but more by how much you work and how well you do it.
Those who are unable to work (invalids, children, etc) would be taken care of.
That's exactly what socialism is about. Of course you don't get 100% back of what you contribute, a part has to be invested again to make the economy grow, then a part has to go to other parts of society, which you have already named.

With communism you have a set need of goods, and we are able to satisfy all your demands... so wages would be kind of useless, since work will become part of ones life, and work as it exists today would be abolished.


How can education be perfect? How can anything be perfect by anyone's standards? Because no matter what, what is perfect to 90& of society, will be questioned by 10% of society (which is what is occurring now, here on Revleft! We are the 10%). So what are you going to do? Simply kill those who question? (This is a serious question. I am here to hopefully learn something new. I don't wanna start a flame war! So my bad :()
We organize as many people as we can, to build the vangaurd party, which we then use to take over the state, defend the proletarian dictarorship and start educating the youth to self thinking communists.

"The old ones start the revolution, the young ones finish it"

We don't have to kill, just oppress :)



It's the commune of lesser capital's fault for making a bad trade then, isn't it? It's the smaller capitalists fault if he is making a bad trade then, isn't it?
We want to abolish the market, not restart the accumulation of capital.

Big capital arose from smaller capital... it's historical development

[AK]

Yes, Please people. This site moves incredibly fast compared to the 30-person hiphop/political message board I am also on...
Really? I thought this forum was slow... maybe that's because I live on the opposite side of the world to where the majority of English-speaking posters are.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

HAHAHAHAHA comparing communism with some backwards living, beard-wearing religious nuts!

As far as I know, yes

He doesn't seem to know that socialism is communism with classes... (as a quick explanation) -_-
Anarchist talking about capitalist individualism?! Why is it ok for him to have anarchist communes co existing with capitalism but not a full worker's democracy?
He doesn't make much sense, since anarchism only works on a large scale too, since the communes have to trade with one another -_-



Uhm I didn't mean it like that, I meant that anarcho communes need MORE anarcho communes... y'know?

Do you actually know anything about anarchism?

We dont want to split the class into small communes, what would be the point in that? We want as was stated earlier, a global, stateless classless society based around cooperation and mutual aid.

Anarchist Communism has to be global, because the working class is global. This idea of anarchists wanting small communes is just absurd. f we dont make the revolution global then we wont have achieved anarchist communism and we would be open for attack by capitalists who want to destroy what we build.

You seem to be portraying us as primitavists who want to go back to agricultural society, that is also absurd.

Anarchism is a part of the Labour movement just like socialism, but unlike socialists we dont want to take control of the state. We want actual workers power such as workers councils and direct democracy.

[Muzk]

Anarchism is a part of the Labour movement just like socialism, but unlike socialists we dont want to take control of the state. We want actual workers power such as workers councils and direct democracy.

This way you take control of the state :rolleyes:

Have you actually read the whole thread or only my bashing of anarkkkists?

[ilikebacon3000]

Do you actually know anything about anarchism?

We dont want to split the class into small communes, what would be the point in that? We want as was stated earlier, a global, stateless classless society based around cooperation and mutual aid.
On top of that, there would be no authority, no rulers, no private ownership. I see it more as a political system than I do an economic system. Implement the political elements of anarchy as stated above (no rulers, no rules, no private property), and I believe that the economic state of Anarchy will follow.


Anarchist Communism has to be global, because the working class is global. This idea of anarchists wanting small communes is just absurd. f we dont make the revolution global then we wont have achieved anarchist communism and we would be open for attack by capitalists who want to destroy what we build.
Why does it have to be global? A small anarchist state (haha.. oxymoron :P) running on a communist economic system could succeed, yes? I don't see why not.


You seem to be portraying us as primitavists who want to go back to agricultural society, that is also absurd.
That is an actual theory though. I'm sure Matt is aware of it. It's called anarcho-primitivism.

Anarchism is a part of the Labour movement just like socialism, but unlike socialists we dont want to take control of the state.[/QUOTE]
I always thought the main focus of Anarchism was to simply abolish all forms of state in general?

[AK]

This way you take control of the state :rolleyes:

Have you actually read the whole thread or only my bashing of anarkkkists?
That's not how you take control of the state. The way you take control of the state is by creating laws and enforcing them through your police and military.

[Crusade]

I don't think anarchism truly abolishes the state. It seems more like anarchism fractures the state and evenly divides it amongst it's citizens. To say there is no state is almost like saying there's no country. A country is defined by not only the agreement it's citizens make, but how it's citizens planned to make sure it's vision is met. To say there are a set of rules and an agreement on how to live, but nothing to defend this way of life is absurd. I think when people think of "no state" they think of a world without order, and this is a huge misconception about anarchism. States not only require concentrated power to a small minority, but it requires a disarming of its citizens in order to make sure no one challenges its power. If the people ARE the state, more power to anyone means more security for everyone. :thumbup1:

[AK]

Why does it have to be global? A small anarchist state (haha.. oxymoron :P) running on a communist economic system could succeed, yes? I don't see why not.
See this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-one-country-t126534/index.html?t=126534

[Little Bobby Hutton]

You look posh kid

[ilikebacon3000]

^Huh?

[AK]

^Huh?
I think he's trying to hit on you ;)

[Dimentio]

I was having a discussion with a friend, which was simply about private property, and whether or not it is "right" to let it happen in society. It ended up going into me being like "Oh, well, I think private property is bad blah blah blah. Everything should be common, no classes, and we should all work towards making our society united" and so I was basically describing a basic communist society without actually saying the words communist and society.
He proceeded to say that Communism wouldn't work in a large society such as the US because of the fact that it is based off of the idea that we should have NO classes, and in the US or something like it, with as many jobs and people as there are, there is no way for this to happen. On top of that, he labeled Socialism as essentially being "Big Country Communism".
What do you guys think?

Also, I don't want you guys thinking my friend is an idiot. He is actually an Anarchist, and is very very left. I just want some input on this idea he has put forward. I sorta agree with it... Because think about it... We have MILLIONS of people in the US. MILLIONS. How in the world can we completely eliminate economic classes? It seems to be quite an impossible feat to accomplish, and even if it were to be accomplished, I think that it would simply fall apart after a period of time.
I do not know much about socialism to be honest... Educate me?

Thanks.
Bacon.

Communism must have a large territory at its disposal to work. Otherwise, it won't have the diversity of resources necessary to keep up an advanced system.

[Robocommie]

I don't think anarchism truly abolishes the state. It seems more like anarchism fractures the state and evenly divides it amongst it's citizens. To say there is no state is almost like saying there's no country. A country is defined by not only the agreement it's citizens make, but how it's citizens planned to make sure it's vision is met. To say there are a set of rules and an agreement on how to live, but nothing to defend this way of life is absurd. I think when people think of "no state" they think of a world without order, and this is a huge misconception about anarchism. States not only require concentrated power to a small minority, but it requires a disarming of its citizens in order to make sure no one challenges its power. If the people ARE the state, more power to anyone means more security for everyone. :thumbup1:

I must admit I've had a hard time understanding exactly what anarchists mean when they speak of a society without a state.

[ilikebacon3000]

I must admit I've had a hard time understanding exactly what anarchists mean when they speak of a society without a state.

I think I might be qualified to explain it, because I do consider myself an Anarchist more than I do a Commie or anything else really.
Anarchism simply means without rulers. It simply is helpful humanity. Much like Communism, as people would interact with one another in a generous way. There would simply be no regulation on food, trade, or any of that. Everyone takes care of everyone.
At least that's how I see it.
I just don't see why people think we NEED a state to stay afloat. We really already function without one. Think about how much you live off of revolves on the state. Not much.
Without a state, communities could still build roads.
Without a state, we could still have doctors, hospitals, etc.
Without a state, we could still open up shops/trading posts.
Without a state, we could do nearly everything we can today. I don't think there would be police, as they are agents of the state sent to keep us in line. Police would simply come naturally as one neighbor would take care of another. If there is a robber, shoot him. That's it. No drug laws. No laws on anything. Things would just be. People have common sense: they know that stealing is wrong (under most circumstances), that killing is wrong (under most circumstances), etc etc, and I think in an Anarchistic society, the depth of our compassion, our love for life, and pretty much everything else would be put to the test, because Anarchism would mean that no one tells you what to do, meaning everything must be based off of hoping that most will do the right thing.
Utopian? Somewhat. Possible? Sure.

[ArrowLance]

Without a state, we could do nearly everything we can today. I don't think there would be police, as they are agents of the state sent to keep us in line. Police would simply come naturally as one neighbor would take care of another.

If there is a robber, shoot him. That's it. No drug laws. No laws on anything.

What? So might makes right? You don't need a state to maintain law and order, people are perfectly capable of maintaining justice without the need of any 'shotgun justice.'


Without a state, we could still open up shops/trading posts.

So now we can exploit people too? This sounds more and more like 'anarcho'-capitalism.


I think in an Anarchistic society, the depth of our compassion, our love for life, and pretty much everything else would be put to the test, because Anarchism would mean that no one tells you what to do, meaning everything must be based off of hoping that most will do the right thing.

Ayn Rand says, "Noooooooo." That is to say, this sounds more and more like Objectivism to me.

[Dr Mindbender]

Communism can only work in large societies.

[ilikebacon3000]

What? So might makes right? You don't need a state to maintain law and order, people are perfectly capable of maintaining justice without the need of any 'shotgun justice.'


[QUOTE=ArrowLance;1691475]So now we can exploit people too? This sounds more and more like 'anarcho'-capitalism.
Not all trading is exploitation. I'm talking about everyone having their own stuff to trade and share, not having people band together within communities and monopolizing. I am a firm believer in the idea that no matter what, trading will occur, no matter how small. Trading is not evil. I don't see anything wrong in me trading my shirt for your jeans, if you agree to it. What is wrong about that?

[ArrowLance]

Not all trading is exploitation. I'm talking about everyone having their own stuff to trade and share, not having people band together within communities and monopolizing. I am a firm believer in the idea that no matter what, trading will occur, no matter how small. Trading is not evil. I don't see anything wrong in me trading my shirt for your jeans, if you agree to it. What is wrong about that?

There is nothing wrong with you trading some personal items if you choose, although in general it shouldn't be necessary. But that is simply not the purpose of shops and trading posts, which assume there is a market. And markets are exploitative, why open a shop if not to make a profit? It is the communities job to distribute goods.

[Luisrah]

[QUOTE=ArrowLance;1691475]What? So might makes right? You don't need a state to maintain law and order, people are perfectly capable of maintaining justice without the need of any 'shotgun justice.'



Not all trading is exploitation. I'm talking about everyone having their own stuff to trade and share, not having people band together within communities and monopolizing. I am a firm believer in the idea that no matter what, trading will occur, no matter how small. Trading is not evil. I don't see anything wrong in me trading my shirt for your jeans, if you agree to it. What is wrong about that?

Nothing is wrong with that.
The thing is when you talk about a shop, you talk about a boss and employees, and no one here likes that idea.

[ArrowLance]

I just don't see why people think we NEED a state to stay afloat. We really already function without one. Think about how much you live off of revolves on the state. Not much. I suppose this should be addressed too in case you are just a bit confused. I don't think many people here think that we need a state to stay afloat. Some of us think that using the state to achieve statelessness and classlessness is the thing to do.

Also Luisrah^ stop making it look like i said those things, I didn't :(

[ilikebacon3000]

Nothing is wrong with that.
The thing is when you talk about a shop, you talk about a boss and employees, and no one here likes that idea.
I see that.
I just had an idea.
This would be a form of state, I guess... By why not just have a big store for each community, and the store has supplies (Building materials, food, water, clothes, etc) and the people take what they need? As long as you help out in the community (by doing your job, whether it is being a doctor or being the janitor), you will get what you need.
I'm sure this has been said a thousand times before, but is that fair in ya'lls opinion?

BTW, I am very against the idea of "bosses" and employees. I think in every human group, whether it is related to work, religion, politics, or whatever, there will always be a leader of sorts, but a leader is different from a boss. A leader directs and guides his people: a boss tells them what to do and how to do it.

[AK]

I think in every human group, whether it is related to work, religion, politics, or whatever, there will always be a leader of sorts, but a leader is different from a boss. A leader directs and guides his people: a boss tells them what to do and how to do it.
You said it.

[ArrowLance]

I see that.
I just had an idea.
This would be a form of state, I guess... By why not just have a big store for each community, and the store has supplies (Building materials, food, water, clothes, etc) and the people take what they need? As long as you help out in the community (by doing your job, whether it is being a doctor or being the janitor), you will get what you need.
I'm sure this has been said a thousand times before, but is that fair in ya'lls opinion?

BTW, I am very against the idea of "bosses" and employees. I think in every human group, whether it is related to work, religion, politics, or whatever, there will always be a leader of sorts, but a leader is different from a boss. A leader directs and guides his people: a boss tells them what to do and how to do it.

Well calling it a store is just misleading. I'd rather just call it a distribution center.

Leaders are all good a dandy as long as they are subject to recall whenever the people feel like it. Also our goal is to have the leaders democratically decided upon and that sort of thing. Socialism and Democracy, that's the goal.

[ilikebacon3000]

^But why have an organized state at all? Most of us already function well without it (minus what the current state provides that is to our advantage, such as roads and.... roads I guess.)
Think about it. When is the last time you sat there and said "Thank the lord for the state!!!"
Probably a while, if not ever.

So why not simply make a society based off of common sense? Sure, a few people don't have it, but that's not a reason to bind the rest of us down using un-necessary laws a guidelines.

[Physicist]

I don't think anarchism truly abolishes the state. It seems more like anarchism fractures the state and evenly divides it amongst it's citizens. To say there is no state is almost like saying there's no country. A country is defined by not only the agreement it's citizens make, but how it's citizens planned to make sure it's vision is met. To say there are a set of rules and an agreement on how to live, but nothing to defend this way of life is absurd. I think when people think of "no state" they think of a world without order, and this is a huge misconception about anarchism. States not only require concentrated power to a small minority, but it requires a disarming of its citizens in order to make sure no one challenges its power. If the people ARE the state, more power to anyone means more security for everyone. :thumbup1:

It's a rhetorical issue fueled by non-conclusive thinkers opposing the the necessity of some violence. The terms government and state have intermingled to the point some anarchists will unreasonably argue that government is "bad" rather than specifying the state component. Anarchism is not and should not be compared to pacifism.

[Physicist]

Well calling it a store is just misleading. I'd rather just call it a distribution center. Since store can be a condensed synonym for distribution center, I have a hard time believing humans - in all our linguistic laziness - will adopt a phrase that further ties up our tongues. To be honest I'm slightly mystified in why leftists will dictate future dictionary entries when radical change isn't foreseeable in any part of the world. It looks juvenile.

[ArrowLance]

^But why have an organized state at all? Most of us already function well without it (minus what the current state provides that is to our advantage, such as roads and.... roads I guess.)
Think about it. When is the last time you sat there and said "Thank the lord for the state!!!"
Probably a while, if not ever.

So why not simply make a society based off of common sense? Sure, a few people don't have it, but that's not a reason to bind the rest of us down using un-necessary laws a guidelines.

Nothing said there talked about an organized state.