What comes first? What is more fundamental: anarchy or amoralism? At first glance, it seems to be amoralism, because it is a metaphysical claim. However, what we know or believe to know about the world is not directly the motivator to action. Action is driven by a preference or value (i.e., action is purposeful). It has to have a goal or intention. purpose is only possible if we value something or, to be more accurate, if we prefer something. This preference is not objective and absolute. It is subjective. Since living and all it subcategories like relating to others (i.e., Politics) is all about actions, living, therefore, necessitates preference.
We might be able to see things objectively through mindfulness, but acting is always subjective, reflective of our “values,” our preferences. anarchy, a theory on how we should treat each other, is subjective, value-driven, and therefore is the same as Liberal democracy and Socialism in that it needs to propagate itself. One might be correct with one’s amoralism, but people are not persuaded to believe on something just because it is true. People believe in something because it is relevant and valuable to them. Therefore in organizing society, the central question is individual freedom: Will we let other people live their lives the way they want to or do we use force for them to do things the way we want? There is no right and wrong absolute objective answer. The reality is simply that the one who holds power dictates the regime. It’s not wrong or right, it’s just how things are.
In anarchy, one way of resolving differences is the mutual agreement on private property. We may have different beliefs and values and therefore rules of acting and living. But if you are in my personal property, this is how we do it. You have to follow. I will do the same if I go to your personal property. If we don’t want such things to happen thenn we have to live separately in our personal properties. The coexistence happens between property owners who respect each other’s laws.