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.
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.