Re: My conclusions on the recent debate

I am not against all rules and regulations, provided they are reasonable and subject to the criteria I mentioned in my above post. However, I do believe a total anarchist system can work, provided equality exists in the economic sphere, because in a system where everyone's needs and wants are met, and no one lives in material deprivation, the reason for 98% of all crimes are eliminated. In such a system, then it may be possible to have a society with virtually no rules or regulations whatsoever (save perhaps one or two prohibiting anyone from taking private ownership of the industries and services that everyone depends upon for survival and comfort, and attempting to use those industries and services solely for personal enrichment rather than to simply meet the needs and wants of everyone in society). But as long as we live in a system of great economic inequality, crimes will proliferate, and therefore I believe a system of rules and regulations must exist at this point in time, albeit only rules that prohibit one person or group committing acts of demonstrable harm against another person or group, or for attempting to infringe upon the civil liberties of other people. Though I do not support a system of absolutely no rules whatsoever at the present time, I do nevertheless support a system of minimal rules in regards to controlling human behavior. I also only support a system that requires evidence of demonstrable harm being committed before someone can be censured by the legal system, never on the basis of assumption alone or on a "just in case" or "better safe than sorry" mentality.

I agree with the essence of what you said, but I still call what I refer to as a free society because it's one based on civil liberties and democratic principles despite the economic nature of the prevailing system. In such a society, the role of the police should be a very small one, not the overly bloated and monolithic industry it is today, with people being arrested and thrown in prison for things as silly as marijuana possession, choosing to have more than one spouse, looking at certain pictures that offend large segments of the population, or engaging in any type of mutually consensual sexual activity. A socialist or anarchist society would be a truly free society as you describe it, but what I am talking about here is a free society within the context of the reigning capitalist system, and I do believe such a system requires a few rules and regulations, otherwise murder, armed robbery, arson, and other crimes that cause demonstrable harm would occur to such an extent that our cities would quickly become uninhabitable. Many here would call your ideals "utopian," but I know better; you are simply talking about a system with a different economic basis, and I believe that such a system is entirely possible with modern technology. However, that is a system for the future; it doesn't exist now, which is why I am talking about a "free society" as in a society that is as free as reasonably possible under the current socio-economic order. I do believe there is a huge difference between the type of society I described in my above post and one that is based on draconian or totalitarian precepts, so I don't believe it was unfair or incorrect for me to refer to such a system as a "free" society. I respect your disagreement, and I would ask you what type of term you would use to describe a system that, while not totally free of laws to regulate human behavior, nevertheless had such laws only to a minimal extent, as opposed to a government that had heaps of draconian laws that were based upon moralism and other emotionalistic ideas.