In a society where people are opressed by their own government, being an anarchist might be considered a way to fight the system. But a country without a ruler, without a system, without a law is no country at all. So even the anarchist's would get lost in their utopian dream where a person doesn't obey to anyone or anything.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't see what you mean in your conclusion: "But a country without a ruler, without a system, without a law is no country at all. So even the anarchist's would get lost in their utopian dream where a person doesn't obey to anyone or anything." I'll try to explain what the truth appears to be so you can see how you came to your false and improperly grammatically structured conclusion. Here is my take on the matter: A country (geographical region) without a ruler, without a system based on a monopoly of violence (both aggressive and in some cases defensive) with respect for Natural Law and Spontaneous Order isn't Utopian by any means, but it is much more preferable to more centralized dictates, as it allows for competition between free market providers of defense for their voluntarily contracted customers, and their justly acquired property. The market, or Agora, is what makes civilization possible where as, the believe in giving a group of people special rights to rule over others causes most of the chaos and poverty in the world. A real anarchist believes in giving every individual their inalienable right to freedom so long as they don't violate others natural rights. Anarchy has different meanings to different people, but true anarchy means that there are no governments, including other types of coercive entities such as war lords, as people have come to rely on themselves and their voluntary interactions within markets free of manipulation from physically aggressive institutions.
Your "Natural law" and "Spontanious order" should have an origine, or if you prefere more the Author who will write those law's and orders.
They cannot produce themself based on a spontanious behaviour of the people. Considering the fact that "Spontanious" order of some rapist or a pedophile is to rape, then this rapist is led by his " Natural law" which for him is just a freedom of acting and living his way. If you want to create a healthy society where the freedom, justice, morality and ethics wouldn't cause No harm to Anyone, then you need a system that is written by people with real virtues. And again, maybe grammaticaly incorrect but i think moraly very correct.
I don't think any anarchists are against punishing evil-doers - in fact, private security agencies would do a better job than police.
You need to understand: Anarchy means 'no rulers', not 'no rules'.
This idea that we're safer because of government is sillier than believing in Santa Claus.
Natural Law just means that humans have rights and morals inherent to their humanity that can be found through human reasoning. Spontaneous Order just means order that comes about without planning and enforcement from governments. You should look these terms up online and learn about them before suggesting anything about them or the nature of human morality. Then you can form a better opinion to offer on how to improve the human condition.