Also within anarchy there is a hierarchy. You state that there should be decentralization in order to construct a good anarchy. However, the issue has to do with the organs of governance characterizing anarchy. You will arrive at the conclusion that even within an industrialized and contemporary anarchy there would be a gerarchy. An industrialized anarchy thus would be characterized by the presence of a dominant agency of protection which, de facto, would be a private form of State.

Both marxism and anarchism are bestialities. Marxism is, however, a bestiality of minor imperfection. The dictatorship of the proletariat is equal to a true form of State; it, for surviving, has to create methods of government, policies, offices, and professionals. Within marxism, there is no liberation from the presence of a tangible State. In addition, the proletarian who does become a politician is not anymore a proletarian. The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is contradictory. Anarchy is equal to a lie. There cannot be anarchy as also within anarchy there would be a major agency of protection, an institution playing, de facto, the role of the State. The greatest bestiality is equal to anarchy. While the dictatorship of the proletariat is an extended form of State characterized by penetrability (thus by the presence of perpetual newcomers), the dominant agency of protection ruling anarchy is equal to a private-based State, an institution that would not be accountable to the people. A private form of State is the most false and dangerous.

You are seriously damaging your reputation. Causality is everywhere. Every human action is equal to a cause-effect relationship. Consciousness does arise in various moments, such as the moment of the choice. Every reasoning and every choice is equal to a cause-effect relationship. Human beings do gauge their choices by thinking about the consequences (thus the effects). You are the philosopher of blue-collars. The blue-collar worker is, often, the one working such an automaton. The "automaton-worker" certainly does lose awareness about causality. The more the individual is creative and has to make choices, the more he is one using causality. Causality is, more or less, consciousness and, more precisely, the perception of consciousness.

Science is in a position to facilitate human action. Those individuals knowing axiomatology are aware of the fact that human action and human teleologies are always equal. Science is not, in itself, a teleology. Science is equal to a series of epistemologies assisting the man in achieving teleologies which, in truth, are millennial. Science is thus an instrument. Neuro-Techno philosophy is meaningless and self-defeating. You should talk, more properly, about neuro-techno sociology. In terms of sociological research, science must be conceived as the producer of episodes and human phenomenons having to do with the social interconnections between people. Neuro-Techno philosophy must be obliterated and considered as dangerous for philosophy, axiomatology, biology, and anthropology. Neuro-Techno philosophy is meaningless such as psychoanalysis and even more dangerous than psychoanalysis. The problem has to do with the process of humanization of science. Science is equal to an inhuman custom. What is inhuman is always equal to an instrument into the hands of human beings whose teleologies are millennial. The strength of human beings have to do with one issue, their awareness of superiority deriving from their ability in manipulating what is diverse from the human entity. Science is the slave of mankind. Neuro-Techno philosophy is destructive towards human nature and human awareness.

In the case we do accept your argument, we may arrive at the conclusion that morality is ineffable. Basically, it is not so. Once you do analyze your behaviors and expectations, you would arrive at the conclusion that what you do and what you do expect from others has to do with the current form of law. The readiness in being contextualized within society, the readiness in avoiding antisocial behavior, the readiness in avoiding the arrest, the readiness in avoiding imprisonment are some of the motivations which do put the individual in a position to embrace the law. It is an issue of economics of behavior and an issue of facility and convenience. Morality is something that must be comprehended and used. Law is certainly the widest and most perpetual form of morality. Law is the edifice of morality. Also, sometimes law (thus morality) can be reformed.

continuing ------> institutional (official) aspect - cannot be abandoned.

Some laws can be contested. The law intended as the "corpus" of majoritarian norms of legal behavior must be always valid. You are contesting some laws. However, the law in itself - the law in its majoritarian aspect and in its institutional (official) aspect -

There must be a common denominator for allowing people to coexist and having expectations. This parameter is equal to the law. Human behavior must be "facile" and emulative. The law must be emulated. Law is equal to morality. It is an issue of simplicity and order.

It is an issue of legality. How to define the good? I analyzed this issue several times. Expectations must be gauged on the basis of the objectivity of the Constitution. The common denominator is the law. We cannot do without the transparency and the categorical nature of the law. Once you talk about capital punishment you are talking about a well-known controversy. I tell you that it is not appropriate to use the case of capital punishment for weakening the value of law. In short, capital punishment is the abomination of the past. Capital punishment is among the last fossils of the age of abomination. Capital punishment is not the law in its perpetuity and in its contemporary nature. Capital punishment is the perversion of the law and its most acid abomination.

It is an issue of legality. How to define the good? I analyzed this issue several times. Expectations must be gauged on the basis of the objectivity of the Constitution. The common denominator is the law. We cannot do without the transparency and the categorical nature of the law. Once you talk about capital punishment you are talking about a well-known controversy. I tell you that it is not appropriate to use the case of capital punishment for weakening the value of law. In short, capital punishment is the abomination of the past. Capital punishment is among the last fossils of the age of abomination. Capital punishment is not the law in its perpetuity and in its nature. Capital punishment is the perversion of the law and its most acid abomination.

The discourse about morality is, in theoretical terms, too much broad and too much ineffable. Thus, we do need a common denominator, something making everything clear and, more precisely, characterized by expectations. Men need expectations for gauging their behaviors and intending the behaviors of others as characterized by an effective degree of predictability. The world would be uncomprehensible and too much dangerous without the presence of expectations. In short, the good is equal to what is legal. Law and morality are the same thing.

It is an issue of legality and social integration. The evil, illegality, does produce anti-social and anti-economic behavior. We have to intend the good as what is legal and the evil as what is illegal.

You are uncapable of understanding axiomatology and human action. Let's put forward causal logic. The principles of morality (the customs, the law, the article of the constitution, etc.) are developed step by step, through the long river of history. Thus, empiricism does make the principles. The principles of morality are made by empirical evaluations. In short, you cannot detach empiricism from principles and you cannot detach principles from empiricism. The two values are together. Empiricism, thus, is always nurtured by the pre-existent heritage of moral principles. Empirical discoveries are the "effect" of a pre-existent basis of principles of pedagogy and principles of morality. Also, we cannot conceive a society within which the void experience (empiricism) would be in a position to dictate norms of law and norms of legal behavior. Human action is always produced on the basis of a pre-existent list of legal norms.

There should be a State that is in a position to guarantee basic rights and compulsion to the people. Taxes are necessary for preserving the public nature of the State. The alternative is chaos and indecent anarcho-capitalism. Even within an anarcho-capitalist regime there would be a State, namely the biggest, richest, and most influential private agency of protection. However, the private agency of protection would be equal to private regime, something transcending the power of accountability of the customers and the people.

I have already spent words on political philosophy. We have to be liberal. Both communism and anarcho-capitalism are crimes against humanity. Liberalism must be enriched with a theory of perpetual basic rights. Welfare must exist, thus there must always be a right to health and, for example, a right to education. Monarchy is a crime against humanity; also, monarchy has been already defeated. We have to stop criticism against democracy. I feel the danger of anarcho-capitalism; you cannot imagine the pernicious effects of anarcho-capitalism. The individuals stating that taxes must be eradicated (or reduced to the very minimum) are, willy nilly, supporting anarcho-capitalism. Constitutionalism is the supporter of a theory of basic rights. Constitutionalism and democracy must be contextualized within a free market. Everything has to do with the preservation of Constitutionalism and Democracy. My suggestion is to defend our values by contrasting in a virulent manner those criticizing the public expenditure that is needed for supporting the State and its public nature. There is no way to substituting the functions of the State with private agencies.

The individual has property rights on his mind and thoughts. The production of thoughts is the aftermath of a theory of property rights. The individual is the unique owner of property rights on his mind. I don't believe that the senses can be doubted. The individual is, also in the presence of poisoning or consumption of drugs, in a position to perceive his own mind as owned by him. It is the starting point of whatever theory of cognition.

Your discourse is unobjective. You do show American theory. The problem has to do with the maintenance of an objective and official State, an apparatus of welfare, coercion, and compulsion that is perpetually accountable to the citizens. It is not even a problem the presence of a single party as far as there are perpetual elections that are accessible to everyone and within which everyone can concur; in addition the single party must be accessible by everyone, that is a characteristic that must distinguish all the offices of the State.

Everything has to do with a theory of property rights. It seems to me that liberalism is the system providing to the individual effective property rights on his person and his properties. Socialism and communism did fail because of their inability of providing effective property rights to the people. It is interesting to talk about the teleology of society. First, only monarchies do have inherent teleology because of the human and interested nature of the State. Within monarchy, the teleology of society is equal to the enrichment of the royal family. The more society is democratic the more it is the bringer of liberalism. Liberalism is the aftermath of the adfirmation of private industrialism. Within socialism and communism, the teleology of society is the enrichment of the State and its party. Liberalism is not a failure. I tell you that the one who does support democracy is the one who does support liberalism. Richness must be variegated and dispersed. The teleology of society must not exist; if it does exist it does it mean that we are entangled into dictatorship and aberrant general equilibrium theory. I state, however, that it does exist the apriorism of well-being within every human agent. The individual does expect well-being. The more society is liberal, the more society is in a position to free the citizen from taxation and free the citizen from State based industrialism and State based interferences. The problem of communism and socialism is that they do sponsorize the sheer well-being of the State. However, the goal is to assure well-being to every citizen. Liberalism is within democracy and democratic theory of entrepreneurship. The problem has to do also with those philosophers critizing liberalism. Once you do criticize liberalism you are basically helping the criminals advocating anarcho-capitalism. Nowadays, I tell you, liberalism is already conservatism and even reactionary theory.

Basic rights are guaranteed by most of the Constitutions. It is not a world in which there is customary humanitarian crisis. Humanitarian crisis does appear as the aftermath of economic crisis, economic regression, or natural disaster. Also there is the problem of customary differentiation. A System of International Human Rights can be oppressive towards customary diversification and cultural freedom. In short, the System of International Human Rights is quite invasive.

The problem has to do with the presence of a steady (perpetual) commission or agency using or manipulating the International System of Human Rights. The presence itself of an organism which is "superior" to the National states is inherently dangerous. There can be a process of devolvement within the legislative capabilities of the State.

In addition, the International System of Human Rights has not a natural duty holder (enforcer). A duty holder of the International System of Human Rights would be in natural contradiction with the duty holder of the National Constitution, namely the State. In legal terms, the International System of Human Rights is subversive towards the State.

The problem has to do with the figure of the duty holder. In the presence of an international agency or commission enforcing the International System of Human Rights, we can underline a principle of subversion or even veiled conflicts of interests. It is something of important. Each Nation is the duty holder of the National Constitution. The International System of Human Rights must not have a duty holder because the latter would be dangerous for the integrity of the State and its enforcement of law and its legislative capabilities.

Power is within a system of expectations. Basically, power is within the law and the usage of law. I intend the epistemology of the National Constitution as competitive and exhaustive. If you intend War Law and, for example, Maritime Law as something that must exist under the form of international law, it may be acceptable. However, the International System of Human Rights has to do mostly with the citizen and his capabilities within the borders of the State. It is not possible to instrumentalize War Law and Maritime Law at the point to conceive the latter as a sort of pre-condition or veiled justification for the production of an International System of Human Rights. The principles of the National Constitution are valid and exhaustive. There is no, at my sight, a way to justify in empirical and pragmatic terms the existence of an International System of Human Rights. I cannot ascribe utility to the System of International Human Rights because of the aprioristic presence of the National Constitution.

A moral system is always equal to a legal system. Certainly, law is subjected to perpetual changes. We cannot intend legality as something that is detached from morality.

Suicide is certainly a destruction of value. Human life (and the human body) do have an economic value. However, the individual has property rights on his life and his body. Suicide is legitimate, it cannot be confuted in moral and legal terms. However, suicide is certainly a brute destruction of value.

In the case you intend the International System of Human Rights as a common denominator for the Nations, it is possible to state that the latter is useless. In the presence of common and dispersed epistemology, the epistemology of the ordinary and contemporary Constitution, there is no meaning in producing an International System of Human Rights. Basically, I'm stating that most of the contemporary Constitutions are characterized by same principles. The International System of Human Rights is redundant and pleonastic.

The point is that the content of International Human Rights resembles the epistemologies of most of the national Constitutions. International Human Rights are pleonastic because they do copy principles that are already within modern Constitutions.