No, they won't. I mentioned education for a reason
Who will pay for the education if there is no state? Homeschooling isn't really a prime example of a success of avoiding bigotry.
—if it does its job properly, and let's assume it does, for the sake of argument, bigotry will probably be a thing of the past rather soon. Even if it didn't work out that way, that mentality would be held only by a small group and would have little to no projection.
Why not? Even if racism and bigotry is declining at present, there is still a lot of it left. And it certainly won't decline faster without a state. People interested in violence against other races won't have a law system preventing them.
You're missing the point when it comes to socialist principles.
Hold on a second, I thought we were talking about dissolving the state, not socialist principles. Socialism and communism both requires a state, a strong state in fact. Moreover, in a society with as deverse opinions as ours, surely not everyone will be keen on your anarchist utopia?
Oh, and the state protects large corporations. Furthermore, if the economy and the means of production were collectivized, there would be no such thing as corporations because factories, or rather, firms (let's call them that) would be democratically run by workers.
This, by the way, is something that already happens in the world today. Look up employee-managed companies.
So it's not a dissolving of the state at all, it's just smaller proto-states that someone needs to be running?
I work in a employee-managed company, but they don't work on large scales. And assuming that every company could be an employee-managed company is naïve at best.
This is pretty wrong. Look, doesn't your town have a fire department? Well, it's pretty much the same thing. And people work at different times, many people hold two jobs, one full-time and one part-time. This could be planned to accommodate people, it's a non-issue.
Who pays for the fire department? My taxes. I am not about to devulge myself into getting a fire department up and running, because I probably won't have the time.
It's hardly a non-issue. I like to be able to have some spare time, in your society, I will be working full time and part time, that seems worse than what I get now. And if I don't work part time, someone might rub my place. Since we clearly still have private possessions (which makes sense in a state-less society).
Yes? How do you think people got their stuff done before there was a state? Human beings build things according to their needs; we adapt and our technology evolves.
The concept of a state goes way
back, long before a society was as complicated as ours. It's wasn't example the free spirit of the people that paved the Roman roads, but the Republic and later the Empire itself. Back when we were mere tribes, we still had a social structure, and things were hardly complex back then.
Which is why we developed the concept of a state. So that some people can do one job and other people can do other jobs. In a state-less society, it's every man for himself, and suddenly I need to participate far more in neighbourhood groups to keep basic stuff running. Like say eletricity and water.
What makes you think people who worked their whole career so far in a specific occupation (paving roads, for instance) would just abandon it, say "f*ck it lol" and do nothing for the rest of their lives.
If they don't get paid, sure. These jobs are paid for by the states at present, now they have to rely on the man on the street to pay for them. It will certainly make any current state bureaucracy seem efficient, when we need to start getting people together to agree on building a road.
It's supposed to be a voluntary exchange of services, different sectors tie in and work together. You really didn't give my post much thought.
You really don't understand humans. You dismiss crime because there is no incentive (because for some reason we are all magically equal), but there are other forms of crime that aren't violent. Hell, that's most crime in practical terms. Greed will not disappear in this new society. And the lack of regulations and laws will be easily exploited by anyone wishing to gain more.
Again, if their means of production were to be collectivized, bosses got rid of and so on, how exactly would a large corporation seize power.
Who will oversee the production? You cannot have a collective decision making, then nothing will get done. You need a boss in charge to make the final decision. This is why we have decision makers. Even if they make wrong decisions half of the time, they still make decisions. The chances of a collective agreeing on production will be very slim. Particularly when the size and scope of a production increases. Like ship building.
Unless, of course, you plan on linking us like the Borg.
There wouldn't even be large corporations, because it would be pointless.
No, it would be the opposite of pointless, it would be the only remaining effect you'd have to maintain your power, if you are already a large corporation. And like I said, you can hire guards, if not armies to protect yourself. All that military hardware won't suddenly disappear. And then the corporations will become proto-states.
Unless you imagine a transition period, where everything is disolved rather than simply abandoning the state.