I’m not as well read on the topic but I would say that any society of humans working together would require some form of resolving dispute - provided that the individuals it concerns cannot come to terms on their own.
With the freedom of pure imagination, I can see a society that lives freely where needs are met if possible by those who can and are willing to meet them. In line with utopian imagination, no one desires to exert power over others (unless in consensual and temporary scenarios) so relationships and collaboration are done with a spirit of purpose/being rather than what one will get in exchange.
Is that practical? Not at face value, because even the best intentioned people make mistakes: in the misinterpretation of what was communicated, or unintentionally overstepping what is comfortable. Both of those can be addressed through healthy and empathetic communication, which is a style accessible to all humans. So I could see a society that openly communicates on all sorts of things and clears their relationships by acknowledging when one’s self has a “pebble in my shoe” feeling of something to address.
No. Authority is necessary to have stable control. Laws are a tool to define the rules the people must follow.
stable control is not necessary for a good, functioning society that best serves its inhabitants in the short and long term. it is, however, necessary for easy subjugation, authoritarianism, and, inevitably, fascism. there also don’t need to be any rules that people must follow, just agreed upon principles to use to resolve conflict.
But everyone can’t agree on the same principles, that’s one reason why there’s conflict in the first place. Just take “Murder is bad”, for example. That obviously counts for humans but what about animals? Vegeterians/Vegans have a different opinion on that than people who eat meat, so who is going to decide who’s right?
Depends what this “society” is. If we’re talking about a Renaissance vision of “Civil Society”, then I can hardly imagine law not being an integral and embedded part of it.
It’s also important to note how the legal framework is born. Different schools of thought have argued on this topic, namely Naturalism which postulates that legal norms are not created but have an intrinsic value in Nature (or from another perspective their legal character is derived from a transcendent entity). Postivism argues from a more realistic perspective that the State is the source of the law; so there is no law without a State who’s the legitimate beholder of the monopoly on violence. Meanwhile, Marxism would criticize both those theories classified as “liberal” by relating the creation of law with commodity exchange between the capital owner and the laborer, and consequently law is born when disputes arise between those two and a State would interfere to settle their dispute.
By applying those theories, you’d be able to arrive at different conclusions for your problem.
Btw, if you’re interested in any of these theories, you can read some of Locke and Montesquieu (Naturalism), Kelsen (positivism) and Pashukanis (Marxism).
Why imagine when we have real world examples what that looks like in practice.
Idk why you keep going back to this terrible example of a bunch of idiot libertarians who were already selfish to begin with. If you groupedtherights people with sustainable resources it would most definitely go diffenrely.
It’s a question of scale though. Sure, if you have a hand picked community of reasonable people who are all on the same page things will work fine. However, it’s really hard to get large groups of people to cooperate in ad hoc fashion.
