07-11-2010, 08:54 AM
i'm saying that if anarchy prevailed, criminals would probably be beaten to death in the street where they were caught. the strongest of best armed would create their own laws and basically nothing would change but the severity of breaking some warlords laws. the anarchists laws are often much more ruthless than normal laws.
we only have to look at uganda when amin was in power, or Rwanda where one of the rules was to chop the hands off anyone who wasn't with the rebels and the to kill anyone who was a nun, priest or missionary.
then we have a different kind of anarchy like we had in cambodia. there the law said kill all the teachers, burn all the books and make people who use industry or science to make a living work in the fields or die. in all these anarchistic regimes, criminals were summarily put to death, usually after being tortured. most of the criminals by the way hadn't committed any crime more serious than not agreeing with those in power.
we only have to look at uganda when amin was in power, or Rwanda where one of the rules was to chop the hands off anyone who wasn't with the rebels and the to kill anyone who was a nun, priest or missionary.
then we have a different kind of anarchy like we had in cambodia. there the law said kill all the teachers, burn all the books and make people who use industry or science to make a living work in the fields or die. in all these anarchistic regimes, criminals were summarily put to death, usually after being tortured. most of the criminals by the way hadn't committed any crime more serious than not agreeing with those in power.