Comment: False

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I still disagree (see in situ)


Without a government, force rules, and with a government, force rules. We can try to balance force and adhere to rules, but these rules tend to sort people by their brains and reward those with more brains over less, just as an earlier social system tended to reward the stronger and more robust. Neither has a moral content that is particularly valid or compelling.

The idea that in a world without government people would just rise based on the quality of their goods in services, while certainly a silly notion, is also not a moral system, since it would just sort brains and talent and the stupid and dull would perhaps often be miserable. That may be the best system, but it's hardly moral.

As to your questions, I don't pretend any social system is especially moral either in outcome or basis, so I am not forced into contradictions or to try to pick the most moral system.

I can support whatever system I think afford the best outcome based on my own interests and a preponderance of interests of others. Only those who imagine their system to be founded in moral absolutes tend to cause major damage to others.