No, I don’t view society and government as exactly the same thing. I do think there are overlaps and they influence each other.
I do think an informal government would naturally come to be if somehow a previous one dissolved or collapsed. And that government may or may not be benevolent but probably wouldn’t be. Things tend to get worse when a government collapses in a region, not improve.
Society is more of a sort of blob of overlapping social networks and social rules/expectations but they aren’t necessarily codified in law or formalized by a grander governing authority. They’re enforced by groups or collectives, sometimes on purpose and sometimes unconsciously. These rules often reinforce in-group and out-group thinking as well as pressure individuals to conform. Sometimes that conformity is reasonable (in that it prevents harm as a net effect) but more often its not.
I think a large and powerful arbiter group to steward individual rights but that is largely otherwise neutral is beneficial to have. Because otherwise smaller communities/groups will dominate and individuals will be at those community’s whims. This would need to be a government with its laws, court systems, (preferably) democratic norms for legislation, etc.
current social forms shouldn’t change much despite your disapproval?
“social forms” is an extremely broad category. I don’t have to want all of them or none of them.
You seem to think ‘society’ means ‘government’. Or that current social forms shouldn’t change much despite your disapproval?
Late response, work got busy.
No, I don’t view society and government as exactly the same thing. I do think there are overlaps and they influence each other.
I do think an informal government would naturally come to be if somehow a previous one dissolved or collapsed. And that government may or may not be benevolent but probably wouldn’t be. Things tend to get worse when a government collapses in a region, not improve.
Society is more of a sort of blob of overlapping social networks and social rules/expectations but they aren’t necessarily codified in law or formalized by a grander governing authority. They’re enforced by groups or collectives, sometimes on purpose and sometimes unconsciously. These rules often reinforce in-group and out-group thinking as well as pressure individuals to conform. Sometimes that conformity is reasonable (in that it prevents harm as a net effect) but more often its not.
I think a large and powerful arbiter group to steward individual rights but that is largely otherwise neutral is beneficial to have. Because otherwise smaller communities/groups will dominate and individuals will be at those community’s whims. This would need to be a government with its laws, court systems, (preferably) democratic norms for legislation, etc.
“social forms” is an extremely broad category. I don’t have to want all of them or none of them.