I don’t get your point, you ask me a question then assume to know what my answer is, then build your case on straw?
It was my attempt to lessen the impact of status quo bias by positing the idea of states as a novel, non status quo concept.
Yes, yes I would very much support that government.
Hmm… Most of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative (Africa, India, the Middle East). Queer folk would be outright banned. Women’s rights would be eroded super quickly.
I mean forget Africa and stuff. I’m in Canada, and I wouldn’t want to be in any union with the US despite sharing similar cultures.
they serve no purpose in such a world, and why would the UN be allowed to be violent?
How else would laws be enforced? A law is fundamentally a rule that is enforced with the threat of violence.
who is meant to uphold these values once they get trampled on? Is it then every man for himself, wild west style, and fuck the weak?
Anarchist militias. Again, no state ≠ no organisation. Anarchist communes would likely have their own militias. These militias would likely form coalitions with other militias for collective protection and efficiency. Large consensual organisation can form. These militias could also be involved in preemptive strikes against forming authoritarian structures.
The important point however, is that these power structures can be exited. Let’s say a coalition member decides to exit the coalition. While the coalition can become violent against this former member, the former member still has teeth, as it hasn’t given this coalition monopoly over violence.
Talking about human rights violations, almost always, it’s states that are actively involved in trampling human rights. Slavery, the Holocaust, Native American genocide, most genocides, etc. were all conducted by states.
It was my attempt to lessen the impact of status quo bias by positing the idea of states as a novel, non status quo concept.
Hmm… Most of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative (Africa, India, the Middle East). Queer folk would be outright banned. Women’s rights would be eroded super quickly.
I mean forget Africa and stuff. I’m in Canada, and I wouldn’t want to be in any union with the US despite sharing similar cultures.
How else would laws be enforced? A law is fundamentally a rule that is enforced with the threat of violence.
Anarchist militias. Again, no state ≠ no organisation. Anarchist communes would likely have their own militias. These militias would likely form coalitions with other militias for collective protection and efficiency. Large consensual organisation can form. These militias could also be involved in preemptive strikes against forming authoritarian structures.
The important point however, is that these power structures can be exited. Let’s say a coalition member decides to exit the coalition. While the coalition can become violent against this former member, the former member still has teeth, as it hasn’t given this coalition monopoly over violence.
Talking about human rights violations, almost always, it’s states that are actively involved in trampling human rights. Slavery, the Holocaust, Native American genocide, most genocides, etc. were all conducted by states.