Reddit Reply "The what, why and how of natural law"

First I want to say that I truly respect your effort here, I think you have done a great job in at least one way and a good job in some other ways, and I sympathize with your cause. With that in mind, I want to offer some constructive criticism, because I think there are a few things worth re-examining in order to improve clarity and reduce complexity.
I already made another comment critiquing your use of "natural law," so I won't mention that again here.

Other than "natural law," my biggest concern is what I perceive to be an over-reliance on terminology that is typically associated with Statism. A few examples of this:
"anarchy ... is [a] social order where aggression ... is criminalized"
In modern societies, various behaviors are arbitrarily "criminalized" by State decree: a behavior is "criminalized" if and only if The State says that it is. Such is the common understanding of the concept of criminality, yet that can't be the meaning you intend to convey while advocating for a stateless society.
This leads to misunderstanding when a Statist interlocutor asks the natural follow-up question which goes like this: in a stateless (AnCap) society, who gets to "criminalize" various behaviors? ... And then, they'll say that whatever entity gets the privilege of "criminalizing" behaviors constitutes a de-facto State. This is an understandable conclusion from their perspective and will be tedious to deal with.
Suggestion: replace all instances of "criminalized" with "prohibited"
"natural law jurisdiction"
Similar to "criminalized," the word "jurisdiction" has a strong association with The State. I would even go so far as to say that it is Statist jargon.
Any entity that "has jurisdiction" constitutes a ruler, or a de-facto State. Thus, the word is totally inapplicable to an AnCap society, in which there is no State, and there are no rulers.
Suggestion: replace all instances of "jurisdiction" with "society"
"law," (other than in the specific context of "natural law," which is a distinct theory) "legal/illegal," etc.
Similar problems to above described under "criminalized" and "jurisdiction"
Suggestion: replace all instances of "law" with "NAP"; "lawlessness" with "rampant aggression" or "systemic aggression" or "societal destabilization"; "illegal" with "prohibited"; "legal" with "permissible"; etc.
"The correct way then to conceptualize anarchy, like any other legal theory ..."
Modern legal systems are universally inexorably intertwined with The State.
Because of the unavoidable association between the word "legal" and The State, characterizing "anarchy" as "a legal theory" is bound to bring to mind numerous associations that may not be applicable to a stateless society. This could lead to any number of potential misunderstandings further down the road.
Suggestion: delete the clause "like any other legal theory"
"a state of anarchy"
It's clear to me that you are using the word "state" to mean "condition," as when the word is used in phrases such as "a sordid state of affairs." It's clear to me because I am accustomed to conversations about anarchy and statism; my concern is that it may not be clear to people who are not so accustomed, i.e. newcomers to the conversation - presumably, your intended audience.
As I'm sure you're aware, the word "state" can also mean "nation-state," i.e. The State (as I refer to it).
In the context of a discussion that specifically aims to distinguish anarchism from statism, the phrase "a state of anarchy" sounds like an oxymoron, due to The State being essentially the antithesis of Anarchy.
Suggestion: replace all instances of "a state of anarchy" with "an AnCap society"


A state of anarchy, as opposed to a state of lawlessness, is social order where aggression (i.e., initiation of uninvited physical interference with someone’s person or property, or threats made thereof) is criminalized and where it is overwhelmingly or completely prevented and punished. A consequence of this is a lack of a legal monopoly on law enforcement, since enforcement of such a monopoly entails aggression.
This definition fits AnCap theory well enough. However, there is a problem in that other types of anarchists (such as AnComms, for example) will disagree with this definition, which can easily lead to unproductive "No True Scotsman"-style debates about which kind of anarchists are the REAL anarchists, and what is the REAL definition of "anarchy."
I recommend defining "anarchy" based on etymology, to wit: the prefix "an-" is a negation, meaning "without." The Greek root word "archon" means "ruler." Thus, the word "anarchy" means "without rulers."
The primary benefit of this definition is that it is authoritative and non-controversial, thus it does not allow for the aforementioned "No True Scotsman" shenanigans.
Rather than saying that "all anarchist societies uphold and enforce the NAP," as you have essentially claimed in the above quoted paragraph (a claim with which non-AnCap anarchists would likely disagree), you could say that "an anarchist society has no rulers, and an AnCap society upholds the NAP."

It is possible for people to use their willpower to refrain from aggression. If you don’t think this is the case, then explain why humanity has not succumbed since long ago due to people constantly warring against each other.
I think this is a weak argument; many people will not see your point, and some will accept your challenge and try to provide some explanation such as "humanity has risen above tribal warfare because the benevolent overlords comprising The State have made wise decisions" or similar. I'm sure you and I will agree that such explanations are, in fact, nonsense; of course we agree, because we're both AnCaps. Statists, on the other hand, I would certainly not expect to see things that way.
Instead, I would simply point out that essentially everyone in modern societies is already an anarchist with respect to every relationship they have EXCEPT those specific relationships involving The State. The argument goes like this:
Are you a "ruler" to your friends, compelling them to associate with you (or vice-versa)? What about marriage - is the husband a "ruler" over his wife (or vice-versa), using force or coercion to compel matrimony? Does your employer "rule over" you by forcing you to work for them, or do you "rule over" your employer by threatening or coercing your way into employment?
Obviously, the answer to all these is "no." That's because friendship, marriage, and employment are examples of functionally anarchic relationships - they are all relationships "without rulers," governed by mutual consent alone.
Thus, anarchy is not merely possible - it is already an everyday reality, and this claim is easily empirically verified by simple observation of existing societies.
Not only is this a much stronger argument, but it has the added benefit of going a step further: it shows that anarchy is not just an idea that could work - it's something that does work, with a track record of sustainability and mutual benefit (since friendship, marriage, employment, etc. can all be sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships). It may also be able to pull double-duty and stand in for your later argument about "the international anarchy between states," thus reducing overall complexity.

I truly hope this is helpful and commend you for your efforts! Keep fighting the good fight my friend.