Originally posted by tezzajw
With anarchy, after shooting me, you will be hunted down and killed by my family. That's justice.
Sure it is...
And then my family rises up to shoot back, so you bring friends, my family brings in friends, and pretty soon you have a war going on. Over a death.
At best, a feud that goes on for generations, at worst, a decimation of countless lives over something as pointless as a random killing.
Of course, that even assumes that your family had the capacity to come back and hunt down your killer. What if you are alone? Does anyone alone and
without family automatically forfeit their right to live and let live? If you had no friends or family to avenge you, where is the justice for someone
randomly killing you?
To which you might reply "well then I would make sure I banded together with someone who would help protect or avenge me."
In which case, congratulations, you have re-invented the Social Compact, which is the agreement of people living together to give up certain inherent
licenses (such as randomly killing, stealing, raping, etc) towards each other in exchange for mutually assured protection from one another and the
Of course, some people's definition of what constitutes a violation of that Social Compact, and how to punish against it, will be different from
someone else's, so it'd be a good idea to clarify where the line is, and what happens to those who cross it. Congratulations again, you've now got
Of course, you couldn't just trust anyone
to carry out the Law... I mean, old Grampa who is blind and deaf and can't walk could hardly be
entrusted with taking down your killer. Likewise, you wouldn't want your friend's pregnant wife going into combat, and a child would have little
idea what they were doing or why. You also wouldn't want an argument breaking out about who "has" to go do it, because crimes never happen at
convenient times. So you'd need to pre-select people to carry out these laws, and they would have the responsibility of doing so. But since this
places them at significant risk, and takes time away from what they could do otherwise, some compensation like pay would be in order. Congratulations
a 3rd time. You've got Peace Officers and Judges.
And even if you refuse to have any part of Social Compacts, there's yet more bad news: your potential killers won't care about your ideals or your
desire to not be a part of society. Because even in an anarchy, people band together under agreement of social compact, and at that point, there is no
This is probably the biggest failure in logic of those that propose Anarchy. Anarchy is not a system, it is not a solution, it's not even a
desireable state. It is a result
of poorly transitioning from one system of Social Compact to another, and nothing more. Otherwise you reduce
mankind to forever wandering solo, raping mates, killing each other on a whim, stealing each other's stuff, and in general, reducing everyone to
That's nothing to look forward to unless you've just got a natural bent for that sorta thing, in which case, it makes me glad we have a system of
defined laws, punishments, and peace officers to at least discourage you from attempting it, and at best apprehend you when you do those sorts of
Sure, it's not a perfect system, but until it's so awful that heinous crimes actually seem preferable, I'll take the current system over any
fool's anarchy any day of the week.
[edit on 6/11/2008 by thelibra]