People are untrust worthy bastards, who would rob you blind if they had a chance.
That about sums it up.
The anarchist movement claims we do not need laws or an enforcing body because people are basicly nice and that morals can and are enforced through social pressures. Like, if I stole some ham from the butcher, he would never deal with me again, so I would screw myself out of getting any ham ever again. And that business men would act fairly and keep their deals as to have a good reputation and keep business coming.
Perhaps I'm rather jaded, but these ideas seem rather naive.
Let's go back in history at an earlier age of anarchy. Such as pre-mideval europe. It boiled down to "might makes right" and there were few morals to be had. Life was very keep in those days. Sure, you could try to deny someone service of they ripped you off. But then they got their friends together, robbed you of everything and smacked you around a bit. Then you might try to get some friends together for defense. Things esculated until you had warlords, kings, and roaming gangs of thugs on all sides.
Laws to protect people from such things didn't start becoming vogue until two or three hundred years ago. Anarchy in the past has, on a broad scale, lead to three things. Raping, looting, and pillaging.
It boiled down to, it's easier to just take something than grow it or build it, and people will always take the easy way out if they can.
Does this mean I support a lot of laws? No. I think our currents legal system is far to top heavy and complex. I think over 200 years of loop holes and finagling has lead to a legal system that needs a near complete rewrite.
This is a very republican view, and I'm sorry, but I think we need a much smaller fedral governement, and power returned to the states. I think we have a lot of regional differences in this nation and a one size fits all approach does not work. Look at California with it fights with the federal governemnt over medical marijuana. Or Oregon's fight with the Federal Goverment over assisted suicide. Or look at abortion. If the bible belt and mid west are so opposed, perhaps the legality of it should be restricted on the state level.
I think the federal governments primary concerns should be the defense of the country, encouraging trade with other countries, and regulating intrnal trade practices. And maybe regulate some national standards to ensure that the enviroment and a few other things are not harmed by states eagerness to be over competitive. I'm pretty sure the individual states can deal with the rest on their own.
States should have exclusive souvernty over what people can do to themselves or with other people.
I think the nation does have a moral code. But I think it should be up to the states to decide on the how to enforce such a code.
But back to anarchy. I think that anachy is just as flawed as a society completely regulated. There should be a balance. You should have all the freedom you want, as long as it doesn not limit someone elses freedom. Murder would limit someone elses freedom to live, so it's bad. Smoking pot in your own home does not limit anyone elses freedom, and is okay. Holding someone against their will, is not okay. whatever sort of kinky consentual sex you want to practice in your own bedroom is just fine.
Maybe I'm the naive one. Who knows. I think think that no matter what system you have, there will be abuse, but I think that when you go to the etremes, be it extreme freedom or extreme control, that the abuses become far worse.