@Humpleupagus @freepatriot @MasterSimper
Anomie is the absence of laws
Anarchy is the absence of rulers
Rulers make excuses for breaking rules by maintaining a monopoly on breaking the rules that they say other people should keep
You also make a severe logical mistake by entailing that a sovereign can break rules. A sovereign cannot. This is law 101. The sovereign is itself not bound by laws.
@koropokkur @Humpleupagus @MasterSimper @freepatriot
If a sovereign can not break rules then how can one sovereign punish another sovereign for breaking rules without a worldwide government?
Is it legal for the one sovereign to punish the other sovereign?
If it is not legal then you have international anarchy
If it is legal for one sovereign to punish another sovereign for breaking rules then a sovereign can break rules
@koropokkur @Humpleupagus @MasterSimper @freepatriot
"In international relations theory, the concept of anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereignty"
"International relations generally does not understand "anarchy" as signifying a world in chaos, disorder, or conflict; rather, it is possible for ordered relations between states to be maintained in an anarchic international system.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_(international_relations)
@koropokkur @Humpleupagus @MasterSimper @freepatriot
If a sovereign can not break rules then one sovereign can not prosecute another sovereign for war crimes nor would there be wars between one sovereign and another sovereign in response to rules that one sovereign said the other sovereign broke