I would caveat that the State is neccessary.

and it's less potential for corruption

fill the void with community specific laws

because a community doesn't influence, reward nor enforce with 'laws'

that statment misses the point

LAW is explict

why can't it?

ETHICS is implict

Ethics are the basis for the laws

Community deals which ethics

Anyway be home in about 30 mikes..don't burn the server down in my absence.

the State deals with laws

these are totally different mechanism

I think your conception of "community" is flawed

I'm talking a group of individuals within a certain area

i can remember when we HAD 'community'

@Laucivol the state is not neccessary

small scale

(Also, stop boosting my ego. It's not helpful.)

whereas the state is a larger governing body

i am not so sure your grasp what i am refering to

you see to assume the "community" is the people

and the state is seperate

in the USA, we were ALWAYS defined by acceptance of certain core VALUES

community enforced these values and ridiculed those that didn't respect them

I'm saying you are missusing terms and my misunderstanding comes from his missuse

today, the mechanism of social ridcule has been hijacked

when you say "community" it appears to be that you are talking about the people

there is not community

and the state keeps filling the void

not a hypothetical community

But a concept of the people as a collective

which is wrong

don't talk to me if you are going to be a post-modernist

I'm not

yes, it is a concept which i labeled 'community'

is the the proper label? perhaps not

I'm saying that your miss use of the terms is creating issues with my understanding

that doesn't invalidate the concept

just the label

Well the concept is flawed