Comment: Out of curiosity...

(See in situ)


Out of curiosity...

...would you say that you would rather live in a stateless society if it turned out they actually could be relatively stable, at the right time and place in history? Or is there something inherently nostalgic to you about a state that would make you prefer it anyway, similar to the way some people have nostalgia for monarchies?

In other words, assuming your concerns about how it works could be assuaged, would you feel morally compelled to give up the 'necessary evil', shown to be unnecessary; or would you rather have a state no matter what?

An analogy for me is that as a Christian, I hope for all persons to be 'saved', reconciled to Love. Whether or not I believe this is theologically possible or even certain (I happen to believe it is), I should still want everyone to avoid whatever hell they would otherwise experience. Believe it or not, though, there are actually some so-called Christians who want some people to burn in hell under eternal torment, who even envision themselves righteously rejoicing over the state of the damned, from glory.

(Another analogy might be someone like a Theodore Roosevelt almost lusting after war, instead of peace.)

Just as I would question the Christ-mindedness of anyone who would not desire all to be saved, I would also question the Liberty-mindedness of someone who does not at least desire a stateless society, whether or not they think it feasible or plausible.