5 ms·

Anarchy means no ruler, not no rules.

• m0zg 7y ago
  There are no "rules" on the international stage. There is no way to impose any rules on a sovereign state. As such, what you perceive as "rules" are merely the lowest energy states that will change when the sovereign state decides that it doesn't want to abide by them anymore, and there's not a single thing anyone can do about that short of imposing sanctions or declaring a war. "International law" is a fictional construct, since there can't be any enforcement.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• jayd16 7y ago
  The concept is about the lack of a governing body that can enforce "rules". By definition "rules" (as in laws) cannot exist without a ruler (as in one who can enforce laws).
  • logicchains 7y ago
    Someone who enforces rules doesn't need to be a ruler; two parties could agree on mutually acceptable rules with a designated external enforcer/arbiter. This is actually how Israel was ruled in time of the Book of Judges (although the unfortunate story there is it didn't work out so they ended up with a king). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy
• philwelch 7y ago
  No ruler means no rules.