Yeah, and states form when large ammounts of people organise into a society.... oddly enough.
That's open to argument. Society doesn't depend on the State but the State always depends on society.
Let's see how open this argument is.
Name one fairly large and successfull society without any form of state or central governance.
The U.S.A. became the world power it is because of the freedoms it's citizens were allowed. Over time though, government does as it always does and becomes thoroughly corrupt.
But were these freedoms devoid of central governance at the time when the USA became this power?
And yes, corruption will happen.
And decentralisation will not eradicate that.
We have technologies today that would help facilitate a stateless society. These technologies are all relatively new. Freedom of information is a vital part.
What technology replaces law and law enforcement?
The state will soon (50 years or so) be a nice history lesson. Just because something hasn't been accomplished yet, does not mean it's a bad idea or impossible.
Not as long as humans can accumulate wealth and power.
You cannot have wealth and power without some way of preventing abuse of it.
The federal government was designed to be weak with specific limited duties. It seemed to work, as the US grew into a world power. Now it's an empire, and the strong, corrupt federal government will be it's downfall.
Decentralized money eradicates corruption of a central bank. Decentralized information eradicates corruption of the media. Imagine what decentralized energy, transportation and food will eradicate.
Decentralisation does not work well on goods that are bound to some region. Energy productio, transportation and food all fall in this category.
They al depend on location and how that land can be used. You cannot farm all land, you cannot put roads everywere and you cannot win energy efficiently everywere. The land dictates the distribution.
Money in the form of bitcoin and media are information which is much easier to decentralize.
Law enforcement is reactionary.
Not at all, there is the effect of it being present which has a permanent preventinve action.
Imagine how the streets would look if there was no law enforcement at all.
Education replaces law and law enforcement.
Not at all, usually both are needed.
Not everyone is capable of enough education and not everyone cares enough.
I would also add religion as a 3rd way to steer and control humanity.
Each of these three covers some part of society.
You have education, if that fails you can scare them and bind them with religion and if that fails there is actual force.
These are the classical tools with which societies are kept stable enough to grow.
Do you need a law telling you not to kill? Steal? Rape? I don't.
Me neither, but the general population couldn't prosper without it.
A law against killing is useless if noone kills but that is not how reality works out.
I mean WTF, you realy think that if there is no law against killing noone will kill?
If you have a free market there will be no scams?
Don't confine yourself to outdated failing systems simply because you can not conceive of a better way of doing things.
Give me something more solid than what you suggest otherwise i'd take the old system any time of the day.
As you can see from my answers above you do not have a very realistic look on humanity. You speak in unatainable ideals.
It seems blatantly obvious to me that you don't have a clue about why we got to this point or how the world works now and would just as easy throw it away for some flimsy fantasy of how you THINK it should work. The fact that i can easily attack these ideas from all sides means they are leaky as hell and totaly not wel thought through.
And noone can give me any straight answers to the hard questions i ask.
Problem with real life is there is not debugging time... It has to work and that is why it is wise to learn from history and adjust accordingly. That means you need to change this system from within and do it gradually. You cannot overlay your ideas and expect them to work. They won't because they would be completely out of context.
First you'd have to think realy realy hard if your new system of "who the hell needs laws" and decentralisation will be able to feed nearly 7 billion people when this depends on so many established trades.
As long as humans can accumulate wealth and power without production. This is the true problem. Government produces nothing, yet being a part of it can lead to both wealth and power. Which path will the corrupt choose? Will they gain wealth and power by producing goods and/or services that people want/need, or will they gain wealth and power by greasing the wheels of a corrupt system? The government isn't preventing abuse, it is the abuse!
No, it is not the true problem. Even if there is production, power and wealth corrupts.
You can see this in how corporations and lately business in general work.
Even if they produce someting usefull they can still act as powerfull assholes.
This is a symptom of power and it is indiscriminate of position in society.
BTW, government produces lots, just not goods.
But there is more to society than goods.
And you cannot just compare all governments.
