Moral Quandry

[Eskay]

On a practical note theres an assumption that stealing would be easy. This might be the case if there was a sudden suspension of the rules of society but not if it were a reality. Consider that if a country were to progress that way, that major hubs of goods would be well protected, your nearest supermarket or walmart would be a veritable fortress to prevent looting.

Anarchy would not function on a basis of every man for himself, groups would conglomerate to protect interests, vengeance would be taken on those who attacked a part of the group. There is a difference between no consequences for you and no consequences for everyone.

I don't see social anarchy as sustainable, humans on the whole have an inate predilection towards grouping from even the smallest base of the family unit.

 

[Morderkaine]

I think in some ways you would have the people who run amok and murder and steal. The gangs and other criminals would have a great time....
But then the moral majority (at least I hope we are the majority) would eventually stand up and defend themselves, and you would have vigilante groups, and people defending their homes as if they were castles. Neighborhood watch would take a whole new sinister meaning, with 80 year old grandmas with shotguns watching out for roving gangs...
More opportunity to be a hero or a villain.

 

[GreenDevilJF]

If there was no punishment or worries, than I would just keep killing until I am killed or everyone is dead.

 

[Daedryon]

Bumping for the good of the forum.