Some questions

>>1840563
>capitalism
Capitalism depends on the signing and fulfillment of contracts in addition to the need to please customers.
I dont see how that's dishonorable

File: keity.jpg (54KB, 600x593px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x593px

>>1840563
No because this isn't a problem in countries made up by homogeneous populations or liberals.

Look at Japan and how they handeled the Tsunami incident.
Even the fucking Yakuza was out working as relief workers while providing aid in the form of billions yen.

Again, this is part of white man syndrome, so please do not include us people who are proud of our race into your own disability to unite as one.

>>1841384
unironically this, the t*rk has a point, homogeneous population tend to be more unified and share stronger sense of values

>>1840563
You seem to have forgotten that the only difference between the earliest humans and what you're proposing is that we have smartphones

Honour society has some nice parts to it, but in all honesty it's mostly horrible.

Look at arabs if you want a honour based society, they go from "my family has very good relations in its home town" to "my daughter had sex before marriage? Burn her!"

States have a much harder time working in such societies, mostly because no one in these places honours fair bureaucracy.

>>1841418
the bad part of honour society is probably higher social control and high expectations that come with it

different societies led to different outcome i think, in east asia it led to suicides, and in middle east it led to honour killing

depend on the kind of state, if they're aligned with the societal norm they go hand in hand

>>1840563
It's not laws that stop people from killing each other. Even if there were no laws, there would always be consequences for murder (indeed, said consequences would often be much worse). More importantly, generally speaking, empathy coupled with the rarity of murder being in one's self interest prevents it.

Granted, any minority segment that feels extremely oppressed and enslaved by the system of society will go hog wild once released from that oppression, but that only lasts so long.

A lawless society, however, is just a precursor to one built on laws. Eventually, some group becomes powerful enough to decide order is in its best interest and enforce its dictates upon the rest. If said group is smart, they'll make it look like it was the idea of the rest of the populous and in their best interest. (And, sometimes, it actually is - at least for a time.)

>>1841431
Well ye if the state is a medieval monarchy then sure it could work quite well, but when you start to talk about things like taxes, mandatory army inscription, universal health care or the other 1001 different things that came along with modern states, you find that these societies hold back the "progress".

>>1841418
>Look at arabs if you want a honour based society, they go from "my family has very good relations in its home town" to "my daughter had sex before marriage? Burn her!"
Nothing wrong with this Tbh

>>1841418
That's not honor, that's fundamentalist religion.

If it was an honor based society, both mom and pah would kill themselves for raising such a slut.

Oddly, I suspect this would actually be more effective at cutting down on such slutty behavior.

>>1841384
Goatfucker