serious philosophical question that i'm uneducated about -- please don't mistake it as my arguing with your statement :
what is the difference between total freedom and total anarchy?
Regulation seems to hurt personal choice for the sake of personal security/well-being; anarchy being a state of total non-regulation then appears to be the state that is closest to the point where personal freedom has escalated to the highest level possible.
Is this balanced by the opportunity that is awarded to those in a governed state that no longer exists for the person in a state of anarchy?
In other words : does the freedom of choice that a structured government gives the individual PLUS the benefits of said society (roads, medicine, whatever) ensure greater freedom of personal choice compared to the person who lives in a state of non-regulated anarchy and isn't afforded opportunity by the infrastructure -- but is uninhibited by regulation?
Is there any meaningful philosophical consensus on this idea, or is it by-and-large unanswered? I'm not really in-touch with the philosophy world.
anarchy is just an unstable state preceding despotism. my rationale for that isn't philosophical, it's game theoretical.
in anarchy, there isn't anything that can stop others from enslaving or murdering me or people I care about. actually, it's likely a positive outcome for my captors or killers. regulation and enforcement give me more freedom in the sense that opportunists exploiting their absolute freedoms go from +EV to -EV. note that the first one to eliminate opponents who employ the same strategy becomes the despot.
