exodus - "Do you really believe that your property or self would be safe with without Law to restrain aggression?"Safety is never absolute.
Ruadh - Well, they are not safe now, in any absolute sense. The real question is whether they'd be safer with or without a state (which is what I presume you mean by "Law" in this context.) I am personally conservative enough to be not easily convinced by theoretical arguments such as those offered by Rothbard. I should like to see a functioning anarchy before I buy it.
**********************************
To be precise, I don't mean "the State" when I say Law; I mean the Rule of Law, which when active, becomes government. "Law" is the human principle involved in organization, not a State, though in practice Law pretty much does mean government.
From what I've read, Rothbard didn't advocate anarchy. He wanted government to both follow and be subject to Law, just as citizens are.
There has never, and never will be, a "functional" anarchy. Anarchy is chaos, not civilization. Any period of anarchy has always, and will always be, followed closely by the organization of the weary survivors, tired of the brutality they had been exposed to by evil men, those who are always ready to take advantage of those weaker than they are.
Law both allows and protects civilization. Without Law, there is no civilization.