Comment: I think the legitimacy of laws

(See in situ)

I think the legitimacy of laws

derives from the fact that the enforcing body or group is the only source of justice in the first place. On your own, you have only your own force or might, or what you can hire. For anything beyond that, you have to appeal for help to third parties, or the public. Since it is the public body that protects in individuals rights, it also has the legitimate right to create laws conducive to its well being and the stability of rights enforcement and other priorities, like general security, property, legal procedures, etc.

We can always disagree what rules should exist, but we recognize the validity of laws and the decisions of juries, courts, etc.

As long as basic liberties are defended like speech, association, due process, trial, and as long as people are free to leave a territory where they don't like the laws, then the have validity.

Where do laws and rules get legitimacy on anarchism?

Any body you can imagine will be based on group consensus, agreement about guilt and innocence, which then uses force to impose its decision.

This is true also on any sort of anarchism that enforces rules through private agencies. All ultimately have to rely on a decision by third parties based on consensus: about the meaning of property, about the meaning of rights, about what principle is right, about the nature of those principles, about innocence and guilt, about whether a party actually contracted or not, etc.

There is hardly any conceptual difference between an anarchist agency and a government, as both is force on the basis of a claim to legitimate jurisdiction. Both are free in reality to violate NAP, and the incentives for that behavior are present in decentralized as well as centralized worlds.