zlacker

It's getting off topic, but it's worth pointing out that all the examples you're about to drum up may not have rule of law, but they certainly have "law," in that they have someone holding a monopoly on violence and the willingness to use it to meet their ends.

I think that's an important distinction to make between such a place, and a place of anarchy or a commune, which aren't necessarily places that don't have "rule of law" and aren't necessarily hubs of raw violent chaos.

>>komali+(OP)
what exactly is your counter proposal? the united communes of america?

monopoly on violence exists because people are evil and violent

without a lawful monopoly on violence you get much of what you see in the rest of the world

anarchist want to destroy the current system flaws and all for a vacuum of justice

>>yters+l1
So your solution to "people are evil and violent" is to... give a bunch of people carte blanche to be evil and commit violence with no accountability or recourse available to their victims?

>>yters+l1
> what exactly is your counter proposal? the united communes of america?

That doesn't sound too bad to me.

> people are evil and violent

It seems that isn't the really the case, it seems only a small minority of people are, but unfortunately violence allows aggregation of power which allows more violence which allows...

> anarchist want to destroy the current system flaws and all for a vacuum of justice

Not aware of any anarchists that want whatever a "vacuum of justice" is.

>>vertex+v1
> "carte blanche to be evil"

Is this a good faith interpretation of what you honestly think they were saying?