Is a free society a oxymoron?
Something I've been philosophizing over, is a "free society". Is this a oxymoron? At the far end of the spectrum there is the ultra tech society of the Edenist (See Peter F Hamilton's Night's dawn trilogy ) A form of society with a built in mechanism that allows near instantaneous consensus. The act of consensus allows for the society to stay civil. No need for governance or politicians (say for a few representatives to sit in the confederation congress) the only two factions are Edenist and Serpents and all serpents get expelled (or choose to leave) making consensus possible.
Not much of a varying mindset between one Edenist and the other all very different in appearance but they tend to share the same views because of there cultural upbringing which is almost installed like software into there brains. In there society there is no poverty or inequities. How could there be? They have a monopoly on fusion material mined from gas giants which all FTL (Faster Then Light) spaceships need to function and they run the biggest and safest bank in the confederation. They have some form of semi technological after life so no need for faith in a god they never met.
If you look at all of what Ive just written you'll probably say "man those Crazy cats are living the dream", and free as well". But really the only thing that I value in what they have is the freedom to leave.
Society in general is a surrender of certain rights for protection and safety in the group. Maybe we would be better if we were like the Edenist. But it's more or less better just having the option to leave if you can't change it. A lot of people will say "drop off the grid", "move to Switzerland", "Find a Island and make it your home" ect. Only the last one on the list I can see being a viable solution but it's out of most peoples grasp. Even if you were to find a island there would probably be a missionary on your beach in the next decade or so trying to convert you to the ways of the world at large like you weren't just there moments ago.
Anarchy is impossible in most societies which is favored by some, without causing them to be less civil. Maybe that's a naive statement on my part. But that's how I see it. Society is a binding of the wills in exchange for safety in numbers. The herd animal's mindset. Harsh words maybe from a black Sheep but it's how I see things and by all means you are free to disagree.
The ideology is only this complicated, IMO, because the artifice of authority is deliberate subterfuge. Anarchism is the natural order of things and 'historically' (I use that word delicately) humans have survived without any system at all..except when dealing with organized crime ...ehhhm .. mean govern mentalism. Iatrogenisis is when the medicine causes the illness. Or in authoritarian speak..blowback. The so called wild west was not a threat to its environment...being an anarchist means I do not believe that wild is evil bad. People are born neither good or evil ..just like every other living thing. Would you rather have populations controlled by mechanisms? The utopian problem is actually what we have now.
I don't actually want a utopia, it's boring and leads to stagnation, and you can't have a utopia without post scarcity and im pretty sure people are still starving and going homeless all around the world. Nature the "wild" has it's own system, I guess you don't consider it as such because it's not man made. Lastly the poison you speak of would only spread to any "society" that formed on top of it's corps in less the inhabitants built there society without any connection to the past (all the old timers like you and I would have to die or go away). But I would say all that has happened is solely apart of human nature and it would all just start all over after a fashion because the only thing that is controlling humanity is humanity and so we got here by are own collective will. Good or Evil doesn't much play a role in this.
And Im pretty sure sociopaths and psychopaths would still exist in this hypothetical model of "society" and probably would be more of them to boot. I can't really say for sure after all the human animal is a unique creature at least on planet earth. Are scope of action goes beyond what most other animals on this planet do. I think by that definition humanity would be considered unnatural. If you want to paint me a picture of a society built on anarchism and how it would come about that would be grand, as I still have the notion that anarchism is counter to society which isn't bad, it just means it's anti herd which is mostly contrary to what we been doing since people's started the first tribe.
Also toying around with the idea of genetically passed memories but that is another subject entirely.