Overcoming objections

I have recognized a definite pattern in the objections on forums discussing the topic of Anarchy. Also this pattern has been seen in people I have talked with; I believe it to have its root foundations in the emotion of Fear. People are afraid of the concept of not having enforceable laws, they think if cops aren’t out there to use force to keep the law, everyone will go crazy and start killing each other and etc. I simply tell them that even with the so-called laws and our form of judicial 'justice' there will still be bad people doing stuff to good people. Any intelligent person would concede this is true as we all hear about such and such murdering this person on the media all the time so it is obvious people still do these things anyways. Sure the murderer goes to jail or is executed, but what good does that do to the victim? Or what about all the people who do commit crimes but thanks to the ineptness of our judicial system, go free?
The discussion will continue and most likely, it is also conceded that our judicial system is not perfect, but it's good that it's there because if it wasn’t more people would commit crimes. And usually this is the end of the argument, the statist opinion can't logically go any further than this, but it does leave some questions open. For one thing, there is no proof that I can find to support that more people would commit crimes, technically speaking if there is no law there can be no crimes!
Of course we all have things we would not like done to us, having our stuff stolen, being hurt, etc. And I agree, I wouldn’t like these things either, but these things are moral issues not legal ones. A good standard to use is the golden rule; don't do anything to others that you wouldn’t like done to yourself. If you like being hurt and have your stuff taken, sorry, you’re crazy. This is one philosophy that transcends race and religion, as I am sure the majority of the people in this world would agree with it.
What we need is morality to replace law, for law only creates an artificial morality which is not universally accepted by its subject populace - hey I am living proof of this! The law creates Fear, not morality. Fear the government for what it will do to you if you do not obey its laws. Instead of doing what is right because you know it is right and honorable. This is never learned by most people because there is only fear to go by. Morals are not taught in schools, and only fear governs people's actions on what to do or not do on moral issues. These being the case, if people have no real morals they will, when they can, commit crimes when they think they can get away with it. Because the simple fact is, there is no mental process in their heads to govern their actions that is independent of the world around them, here is a simple example:

Jack walks into a candy store, the clerk is standing with his back to him. Jack thinks, 'hey I can take some candy and he'll never know!' So Jack takes candy. Obviously his thoughts are logically sound, but immoral. The clerk can't see him; he has the power to take the candy he wants. Since fear is the only morality there is no mental process past this conclusion, thus it is dependant on if the clerk is watching him or not. If the clerk had been watching then he'd think: 'Hey he's watching me, I better not take candy or I could get in trouble.'

Enter Joe, someone who was taught morals. Joe walks into a candy store, the clerk is standing with his back to him. Joe thinks, 'hey I can take some candy and he'll never know!' but then thinks. 'But I know stealing is wrong, I shouldn’t do it.'

As we can see in this example, fear is not an issue. Joe decides to do the right thing because it is right, not because the clerk is watching him. We could argue that most people in the world today have some morals anyway, but law is still needed because people still decide to do the wrong thing. I absolutely agree that people have free will; they can knowingly do the wrong thing. However it isn’t as likely if they know something is wrong. Also it's fair to claim if someone doesn’t believe something is wrong, once the fear is removed by circumstances then they would be more likely to do something wrong.
Furthermore, I'd wager that the same people who do wrong when they know it is wrong would be the same people who do wrong with or without laws. The rest are just ignorant of morals. This be the case, it makes more since to instill morals in people than to provide fear from laws. Laws create a very dangerous situation, because if for some reason the government was taken out by natural disaster or violent revolution there would be no fear to encourage laws. People would go crazy as the statist would claim. We are in agreement on this. This is why I support libertarianism as a transition; most people aren’t ready for Anarchy yet until the masses become morally enlightened. Some of us are ready however, why should the masses hold us back? More on that later.

In conclusion I state that people who do wrong and are aware of morals will commit wrongs regardless of law; they will commit evil when they can get away with it. This makes the claim that law is necessary, a weak one. Law is one of the justifications for government; therefore its justification is also weak. It may be true more people would do wrong without law, but if they do it's only because they are ignorant of morals. Morals will allow people to govern their own actions justly, avoiding the dangerous situation law and government creates by making law and government unnecessary.

So what can we do about the people who do wrong then without law? This is another common question and I'll address it in my next post.