>>494983You must realize that what may work descriptively will instantly falter when we speak of prescriptions, of "ought" and "should", of how we will evaluate things provided a shared goal to base our judgments on? If you are starving, it is trivial to say you are starving; what of whether you ought to be starving, and why I should find that bad?
Many social orders, including our own today, are coercive in and of themselves, though the character and degree of that coercion are far from equal between social orders. A society that puts one into a designated underclass and punishes non-compliance with the demands of an overclass would be rightly called dictatorial, yet the absence of any social order at all, the state of nature, would hardly offer anyone freedom.
The ravages of uncertain food, risky water, predatory animals, poisonous plants and no shelter or tools but ones own, would make any individual that wishes to stay alive become highly unfree. Yet only by banding together, specializing in tasks, and offering aid to one another as needed, can anyone begin to become free in any meaningful sense, to begin to have time that isn't wholly consumed by necessity.
Certainly societies have in some epochs degraded into new forms of hazardous jungles, yet I would find it less inept to try taming it over again, than to resign oneself and one's children to only ever being lone beasts.
