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!).

I know exactly what you are saying, I know exactly how natural law ethics works. I'm also not talking about religion.

You are wrong, however, when you say that natural law of justice is the same as natural law of physics. I used to think that too, but it is actually not correct. Why? Because it is entirely possible to ignore it. I personally accept rules like "don't murder" as rational and good, but I certainly don't expect others to recognize these rules. No natural law ethics compels people to not murder. In fact, I have no right to expect others not to murder me. That sounds really horrible until you realize that it's true.

This was a really intense and wonderful debate in Benjamin Tucker's Liberty between himself and other Stirnerites and the natural law anarchists (Spooner, Kelly, and others). The fact is that ethics is not as simple as it looks through the prism of natural law.

But don't worry, I promise not to kill you You have my word.

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

You can't compartmentalize natural law. Just as you can't compartmentalize freedom. In any society, from the 100% despotic to the 100% free, it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to prevent murder. Government does not prevent murder. Now if you are wondering about the mechanism which is used to deal with murderers, then yes, it is different in an anarchic society.

I don't buy into "Natural Law of Justice". That's pretty silly to me. When I speak of natural law I think of something far more basic. If I murder you, someone else in this world, like one of your family members, might take offense to that. I bet that they would even take drastic steps to see me killed. If there aren't any family members who are able to avenge you, then what about the people living around me. All the sudden, in this free society based on non-aggression, a tyrant pops up and commits the worst act. They may not like that one bit. In a society where people are free to take immediate and drastic action against those that pose a threat, the penalty for crimes against humanity are far worse than in a society ruled by a government who spends trillions every year committing crimes against humanity.

Natural law does not prevent murder. Neither does government. Natural law is natural law. Trying to compartmentalize it only creates confusion. "Justice" is what disenfranchised people cry for when they are unable to take the action they desire in order to correct what they perceive to be a wrong. Therefore, "Natural Law of Justice" doesn't make a lick of sense. People can only be disenfranchised through tyrannical actions of others or through the abdication of their own power.

Of course, that is why governments always get the people to abdicate their power to the government.