I'm not certain I understand your question, so if this doesn't answer it, please clarify for me. morality is in the eye of the beholder. it is individualistic by nature. Society, by it's nature, is collectivist.
Society is not fundamentally collectivist. Society streamlines the constellation of subjective values through interaction and transaction. Morality sets the standard in which these interactions and transactions serve a mutual benefit. The fundamental basis of society is the individual, since the starting point is building a form of cohesion between two or more subjects. And to do that, analysis of the individual's stake in the arrangement is necessary.
Individualism is the only moral philosophy that both acknowledges and respects the subjective, as well as any subject's function in his or her own experience.
We are all parts of a much greater whole.
Which "whole" is that? And what makes it "greater"?
The only way to prevent this is to destroy society and keep everyone in their own separate bubbles where they don't interact in a meaningful way. since this is obviously impossible, we can only proceed with reality the way it is.
You've inferred "impossibility" because you've imputed a non sequitur. An individualistic society can function on the respect of individual autonomy. Individuals will interact and transact when it serves their benefit.
what alternative is there? either we have communally agreed upon rules of conduct, which will necessarily fail some people, or we don't have any communally agreed rules of conduct and people are free to injure each other at will (which fails virtually everyone).
Or we can let the market handle "rule-setting" and leave it to an individual's discretion to follow them or not. Take this forum for example: each member joins agreeing to a set of stipulated rules. Your participation is contingent on accepting or declining these rules. The site's administrators employ moderators to ensure the maintenance of this site by seeing that the rules are followed. In the event that rules aren't followed, they can extend the administrators' proxy by penalizing and/or ostracizing (banning.) Perhaps you're thinking "how is this different from government?" Participation on this site is willful. One is not tagged with a social security number (a.k.a. bond number) at birth and conscripted. Second, should I decided that I no longer wish to abide by the rules of this site, then I'm free to leave with no less than that with which I came in. In other words, the forum cannot seize my property. Third, the forum's stipulated rules aren't codified with the threat of violence. That is, the forum cannot detain me or kill me. Last, I'm free to roam the internets for forums with rules which suit my tastes without deprivation.
Internet interaction is a microcosm of how anarchy works. And with essential services and even interaction being automated through the internet, that microcosm is increasing in scope. Sure, you'll have your trolls, loons, hackers, hustlers, etc. But there will also be intelligent and thoughtful individuals, "moderators," and security mercenaries (Kapersky, Norton, AVG, Malwarebytes, etc.) sustaining the integrity of interaction and transactions. If one subscribes to this Hobbesian delusion that man cannot be left to his own devices, then no system of government will ever "work" because the practices and ideas sustaining said government are a product of man.
ok, and if lots of people decide they do want to harm their neighbor, what does your hypothetical society do about it? For that matter, what happens if a large group in this society decide to band together to harm a smaller group in this society? Who is going to stop them?
The neighbor can defend himself. He can hire mercenaries to defend him and his land. He will however not be bound by a system which justifies a larger group doing him harm.
you will always be beholden to others because you have indivisible ties to them. you are beholden to your boss because you need money to survive.
I need "money"; I don't need a boss. So then how am I beholden to my boss?
if you piss off your boss you will be punished. You are beholden to your bank. They hold the loan on your house. If you piss them off they take your house or your car.
And in the event that I own both my house and car, to whom am I beholden then?
You are beholden to the other members of your community. You need to be able to live and work together.
I need services; I don't need any particular member of my community.
If you piss them off they may decide to beat the shit out of you.
They can try.
You can't ever be totally sovereign. Other people will always have a say in what you do and how.
That which others do may be taken into consideration when making a decision, but that doesn't change that the decision is mine.
The only way to change that is to cut yourself off from all others so that no one cares what you do.
Or... we can entertain the notion that "caring" about that which I do doesn't give another authority over that which I do.
because governments need to consider the wishes of as many of their citizens as possible in order to win an election. a minority is by definition, not going to be enough to win. But they may certainly be a large enough block to be important in an election. It is dangerous to ignore the suffering of voters. In a society where the people with power don't need to worry about an election, they don't have to give a shit what people think.
A transient indulgence which occurs every four years and six years, after which they are no longer beholden to their campaign promises.
they aren't. but that is why we insist on laws to try to prevent them from abusing this power.
And who enforces these laws? Who sustains them? The same people from the aforementioned evil society?
And if they do abuse it we vote them out of office or arrest them.
But society is evil, what use would that serve?
no, you haven't explained precisely how your hypothetical society would function so it is hard for me to generalize. If your proposed society included any sort of rule making, then people could be bribed.
Look above. And judging by your statements, is it fair to presume that one could infer from your argument that any system of government is prone to abuse?
If there is no formal rule making, then all they have to do is hire thugs and they are now king.
Who is the king of the internet?
using formalized power, ie police, the military.
And it's impossible to pay off cops and soldiers?
i'm still trying to get a firm handle on exactly how you think this society would function. so if this isn't relevant to your idea, then you may need to clarify.
Look above.
ok, and who enforces those contracts or the results of the mediation.
No one does. The contract is sustained by perpetuated participation.
if the mediator says i'm wrong and I say "fuck you" and hire 30 guys to go burn their house down or just threaten his family, who is going to stop me?
Who's to stop you now? Especially if you don't alert your target?
Or for that matter, what if I just bribe the mediator?
What good does bribing the mediator do? The mediator is there to help resolve a dispute. One's agreement or disagreement with the resolution has nothing to do with how much the mediator is getting paid. But let's say I catch wind of this supposed bribe and alert my fellow community members that this mediator takes bribes, what would that then do for his reputation?
One of the common responses to the posit of anarchy is to test its "perfection" with outlandish scenarios. I'm not arguing that life is perfect in anarchy. I'm arguing that accountability, responsibility, and authority are where they should be in anarchy.
