Drakir wrote:
> I can't see how that could work!!
>
> Surely there would bed lots of property disputes, even if the land were
> owned by the state only. This would result in war, IMO.
Martin Traynor wrote:
> Only if we see state as being inherently territorial. If we view it
> as social structures (which I think was what this thread was
> originally concerned with) we can have a multitude in the same
> physical territory without any problems, provided each is prepared to
> accept the others existence. For example, let's say I want to live
> and practise buddhism but you want to live and practise christianity.
> This is only a problem if I don't want to allow you to practise your
> faith or vice versa.
Hara, this very thought-string is one of those from which my
functional-society model evolved. So, I'll finally quit trying to
translate my model onto English, and begin building a model with you...
Let's see:
* What's the boundaries of a social structre? What's the difference
between it and a state? Autonomy? Monicipality? etc.
Several rhetorical questions:
* Can you design a state which can work for the benefit\interests of
each and every one of its citizens? What's so ideal in such a state?
* Can you design a state once which can function well for years? How
flexible can a state be, so it could survive and function well on and
on?
* How firm & developed could be a national idealogy?
Now
* What about having various social structres, each working for a certain
interest of its members?
* What about infinite Super-structres [e.g. state] and Sub-structres
[e.g. family], forming, mutating and collapsing according to the needs &
aspirations of the individual?
* Let's say a billion people are interested in eating choco-ice-cream -
Should the social structre for this interest be made of a billion
members? What are the criterions upon which to build a social structre?
What's wrong with buying choco-ice-cream in the nearby store?
* What makes a society stable? torn apart? totalitarian? flexible?
conservative? functional? ignorant? flourishing? hedonist? fanatic?
liberal? good?
<How many grammatical mistakes flourish throughout these questions?>
Ok, additional questions will be posted only if those ones are clear
enough to be answered.
Lior.