Originally Posted by Anarchist
Now the obvious question is, "Who is going uphold these fundamental moral principles?"
You may say"Well, but what about the criminals ravage in the streets? Who's going to get rid of them?" Well why can't you or your friends get rid of them , why do we need an agency that violates these principles to get rid of people that violate the same principles the agency violates? Hypocrisy much?
Actually, it's your logic in this statement that is the hypocrisy.
Many years ago, a bunch of people (ie "you or your friends") got together and did exactly what you said: They decided to get rid of the criminals themselves. They did this by establishing a government institution that would do it for them.
So your argument is basically: Destroy all of the institutions that we are currently using to keep ourselves safe, then when we are at risk of being killed, robbed, and enslaved, we should band together and re-build those institutions to keep ourselves safe again?
Makes no sense to me.
Sidenote: If you want to see the real-world effect of anarchy, just look at Somalia and similar countries in Africa that have ongoing genocides all the time, along with mass starvation because the gun-toting mercenaries steal food and supplies from the poor. An anarchy isn't a system of government; it's merely a temporary lack of a system of government. With a lack of government in a country, anyone is free to come in and establish their own government and then poof: the anarchy is gone, and has been replaced by the guy with the biggest guns being your new dictator.
The paradox/irony of a government establishing rules is that having the right rules in place actually increases freedom, not decreases it. For instance, having murder be illegal and having a police force that will respond and be at your house in 5 minutes if you say someone is trying to murder you, gives you the freedom to live your life without living in fear all day of being murdered as you walk down the street or sleep in your bed. Yes, in an anarchy where no such rules exist, you have the "freedom" to kill someone, but you paradoxically lose the freedom to live without fear of being murdered.
Most people would probably give up the freedom to murder others, in exchange for the freedom to live without being murdered. The same applies to being robbed from, having your property vandalized, etc, which is why those laws exist in the first place.