[BurgessLau]

Since this is the Philosophy section, I have philosophical questions. The ontology underlying this post seems to be one of Two Worlds. The epistemology is a combination of faith and appeal to reason. The ethics is altruistic: Do the right thing for the sake of society. The politics is not republican, but statist: The state should regulate social behavior for the good of Society, rather than concentrate exclusively on protecting individual rights from aggression and fraud. I question the article's conclusions, because I reject the underlying philosophy.

[steve-b]

Worse than that, it's downright incoherent in the way it entangles the concepts of "state" and "society" like the tentacles at an octopus orgy. I'm not sure whether this is an inadvertent result of sloppy thinking or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate advocacy of Platonic totalitarianism.

[FormerLib]

Clearly, you've made a logical error in equating society with the state and you attempt to use them as interchangeable concepts when they are, in fact, quite different.

The state is expected to support society and the moral traditions that allow it to exist. The left want the state to destroy those myriad aspects of the society that they do not like, never realizing they are opening the door to anarchy....with the exception of those who do realize it but are stupid enough to think this would be desirable.

[AreaMan]

I question the article's conclusions, because I reject the underlying philosophy.

The articles conclusions are correct for the same reason that your reasoning is defective.

People are not robots made out of meat.