As an anarchist I firmly disagree with this entire premise.
We literally live in a society governed by the whims most powerful people as dictated by the hierarchy that “rule of law” and the capitalist system creates. Rule of law got its beginning in the whims of kings deciding that everyone “beneath” them on the social hierarchy should follow their rule or be subject to punishment. The rule of law is literally “might makes right”, you either listen to the authority of those at the top of the hierarchy or they will send the state dogs (the police) to force you into obedience.
Stealing food from a corporate entity is 100% a morally correct action. Stealing itself is an action that cannot be morally judged without understanding the socioeconomic circumstances behind why someone would feel they need to steal in the first place.
Following the law has nothing to do with morality.
I’m assuming you’re referring to the US when you say “We literally live in a society governed by the whims most powerful people…” That part is true. But the most powerful people get there, largely by breaking the law, trusting it won’t be enforced; Even when it is, the punishment won’t really matter.
Rule of law got its beginning in the whims of kings deciding that everyone “beneath” them on the social hierarchy should follow their rule or be subject to punishment.
No actually. The “Rule of Law”, replaced the “Rule of The King”. Meaning instead of The King being the ultimate authority, The Law is ultimate authority. Prior to The Law, The King made rules, but those weren’t Laws. You may be making a bit of an equivocation fallacy here.
The rule of law is literally “might makes right”, you either listen to the authority of those at the top of the hierarchy or they will send the state dogs (the police) to force you into obedience.
No That’s the Rule of The King again.
The Rule of The King by the way, is the natural consequence of anarchy.
And none of what you wrote directly disagrees with what I wrote.
You think it does, due in part to the misconception or Rule and Law I just tried to explain.
“hierarchy of kings is the consequences of anarchy, a political system devoted to the abolition of hierarchy”
Do you really not understand how stupid you sound?
“Rule of Law replaced Rule of Kings”
Do you not know the phrase “the king’s word is law”? You have literally zero clue what you’re talking about and just spouting bullshit. Literally, zero clue if you believe that the decrees of kings weren’t laws. The only difference is who held authority to dictate laws, going from kings to a body of elected representatives.
You just don’t get it and I don’t have the time to explain anarchism to you and the evolution of hierarchical governments. You’re just heavily misinformed.
I’m asking because you quoted a statement with the phrase hierarchy of kings. But I never used that phrase, so I’m not sure who you’re quoting.
I would say calling anarchy a Political System, is something like calling a blank canvas a painting.
Anarchy is the absence of a system. Once a system is in place, there’s no longer anarchy.
As an anarchist I firmly disagree with this entire premise.
We literally live in a society governed by the whims most powerful people as dictated by the hierarchy that “rule of law” and the capitalist system creates. Rule of law got its beginning in the whims of kings deciding that everyone “beneath” them on the social hierarchy should follow their rule or be subject to punishment. The rule of law is literally “might makes right”, you either listen to the authority of those at the top of the hierarchy or they will send the state dogs (the police) to force you into obedience.
Stealing food from a corporate entity is 100% a morally correct action. Stealing itself is an action that cannot be morally judged without understanding the socioeconomic circumstances behind why someone would feel they need to steal in the first place.
Following the law has nothing to do with morality.
I’m assuming you’re referring to the US when you say “We literally live in a society governed by the whims most powerful people…” That part is true. But the most powerful people get there, largely by breaking the law, trusting it won’t be enforced; Even when it is, the punishment won’t really matter.
No actually. The “Rule of Law”, replaced the “Rule of The King”. Meaning instead of The King being the ultimate authority, The Law is ultimate authority. Prior to The Law, The King made rules, but those weren’t Laws. You may be making a bit of an equivocation fallacy here.
No That’s the Rule of The King again.
The Rule of The King by the way, is the natural consequence of anarchy.
And none of what you wrote directly disagrees with what I wrote.
You think it does, due in part to the misconception or Rule and Law I just tried to explain.
“hierarchy of kings is the consequences of anarchy, a political system devoted to the abolition of hierarchy”
Do you really not understand how stupid you sound?
“Rule of Law replaced Rule of Kings”
Do you not know the phrase “the king’s word is law”? You have literally zero clue what you’re talking about and just spouting bullshit. Literally, zero clue if you believe that the decrees of kings weren’t laws. The only difference is who held authority to dictate laws, going from kings to a body of elected representatives.
You just don’t get it and I don’t have the time to explain anarchism to you and the evolution of hierarchical governments. You’re just heavily misinformed.
Who are you quoting?
Are you replying to the right comment?
I just can’t with stupid people. Piss off.
I’m asking because you quoted a statement with the phrase hierarchy of kings. But I never used that phrase, so I’m not sure who you’re quoting.
I would say calling anarchy a Political System, is something like calling a blank canvas a painting.
Anarchy is the absence of a system. Once a system is in place, there’s no longer anarchy.