To sum up, "Anarchy" means without rulers, not without rules. Rules of nature, laws of nature, and natural law are all the same thing. Every human being is subject to them simply by existing as a human being. There is nothing anyone can do about it. An "Anarchist" is someone who believes in peaceful voluntary interaction. To add anything to this definition is to muddy the water and turn a simply subject into a pet project. Anarchist are not all the same. Some may believe in a god, some may not. Some may believe this universe is a hologram, others will believe it's a dream, while others will believe everything is solid. These extra beliefs have nothing to do with anarchy. They are the domain of the individual's mind.
Anarchy = non-violent association. Nothing else.
I agree with this to some extent. I think there was some confusion (maybe as you alleged my previous post was just totally incoherent) between us.
It is true that no man may avoid the effects of the laws of nature. For example, if I jump off a cliff and flap my arms really fast, I will still plummet to my death. But this is not what happens in terms of justice. For example, if I kill someone I will not receive any inevitable
punishment. So the law is actually not a law describing nature, it is just a concept about what maybe should
happen (i.e. if I kill someone, I should
So I don't actually have to obey the "natural law" in ethics at all.
Ergo, is anarchy synonymous with natural law? Certainly NOT
. If I came to an area, settled there, and said "from this moment forth everyone here has to obey the natural law" I would be turning myself into an archon, one who establishes laws.
Anarchy also cannot be "non-violent association" because in order to have anarchy one does not need association at all.
I'm just saying these topics are interesting to discuss because all is not as clear as it seems to someone who read Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty
and suddenly is an expert on ethics and anarchist theory.
Any "-archy" implies association. One person alone in a room can have neither anarchy nor monarchy. Only when you introduce a second person does an "-archy" come into play. What we're talking about here are ways for human beings to live together. Therefore, anarchy implies more than one human being.
Now it is true that in a society with no rulers that there will be no guarantee of justice. . . . so explain to me how this is different from a society with any type of government. (seriously. I would love to hear it!)
However, I would disagree that a 1-to-1 retribution for crimes is "ethical". What I would say, though, is that if you kill someone, that person is likely to have friends, family, and associates who may all want to kill you. That is natural law. There are natural consequences to any action. Government circumvents these consequences and makes it possible to escape natural consequences. I would put forth that government prevents proper retribution for those that deserve it, and punishes those that don't (not 100%, but for the most part).
And you seem to misunderstand what natural law is (along with anarchy). It is not a set of rules people choose to follow or not. They are simply the forces at work in the universe. You cannot turn off gravity like you can taxation. What positive law does is use force in order to prevent the natural consequences of actions in order to manipulate outcomes. Positive law is to Keynesian economics as natural law is to Austrian.
And if you settled an area and said everyone has to obey natural laws it would be like saying, "In this area, everyone must adhere to gravity!" You wouldn't be an archon, you'd be an idiot. Natural laws are not turned on or off. They simply exist (outside of religion to be sure!).