Would you really kill and torture though? Just because there are “no rules” doesn’t mean there are “no consequences”.
Anonymous message boards like 4chan where people can say anything will obviously bring the worst out (because there are no consequences), and are not at all representative of how society might function without “rules”.
Put those people in a room together and watch them try and survive? …well, maybe 4chan isn’t a good representation for my theoretical scenario. But nonetheless, you put people in a room and one of them murders someone, you bet the others will team up to prevent that person from murdering again. A “rule” isn’t necessarily born out of it, but rather a response to the need to survive that’s rooted in us all. And because of this need, social structures begin to form from these responses (people grouping together to figure out how to prevent others from murdering).
You don’t need an overarching power structure telling you to not murder people. Humans will respond accordingly whenever there are those who threaten that innate drive to survive and thrive.
Question:
Which one of the following identifies a flaw in the reasoning in the comment?
A) Assumes that the only valid forms of expressing discontent with a company are through union membership or boycotts.
B) Overlooks the possibility that some individuals may not have the practical option of joining a union or effectively boycotting these companies.
C) Presumes that complaints are only valid if the complainer is taking direct action against the companies in question.
D) Fails to consider that boycotting companies or joining a union might have unintended negative consequences.
E) Implies a false dilemma by suggesting there are only two alternatives to address grievances with these companies.