So you would have no rules except your rules?
No. I would have no rules--PERIOD. For what reason would decent and reasonable and considerate people need rules, when there would be a de facto state of understanding? You seem to resent the concept. Please tell me what rules are bothering you by their absence...and for what reason, by what process, and for what goal they would be instituted?
You can't account for reason from a random universe, and the other two are hopelessly naive
I am only aware of one universe, and I can account for reason in it. It has been defined by human beings and it has an understood meaning as a particular way of processing data and sensory imput. If you are aware of two other universes which are hopelessly naive, I would be very interested in the information--if it is not a bother for you. I gather from the adjective, "naive" that these other universes are at least thoughtful, if not bright.
Talk about pie in the sky!
This is new! In the age of Tribal Gods, these were thought of as little hanging lamps!
The real reason it will never be tried is that it's obvious that it won't work.
Excellent argument!!
If you were truly consistent you would be advocating pure anarchy.
I have no idea what the comparison of consistency is to be related to, but nevermind. You seem to be unaware that the hypothesis is exactly that--anarchy. Of course, "anarchy" has evolved contradictory definitions, so you will need to use your reason to understand the type of government-free community I am speaking about. At no time did I advocate it. I said it was workable; and I hinted that it might be superior--in the benign sense of the word. |
