Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom

Lets first agree on one concept; The concept is dubbed as questionable, so it might be viewed as an assumption rather than necessarily factual; Refraining from committing one's initial choice is not seen as lack of Freedom, but rather as a Freedom in itself. What matters is that one had the choice of course of action, and acting out what seems reasonable is a matter of choice.
This means that Freedom in itself can backfire and lead to unfavorable consequences;

Freedom is Darwinistic feature: The fitter (stronger?) lays out the rules and others can either submit or fight. The fitter doesn't have to be a single person: it could be an authority, a community, or even just a simple idea.
In this sense, we can see law makers as being fit to their positions: They lay out the rules; The law enforcement force is the 'muscle' of that position... In short, the laws are not viewed as lack of Freedom, but rather as a practiced Freedom of people in position to influence the Freedom of others.

Thus, somehow I find it absurd to 'support' true anarchism! The thing is our world is actually already lawless; Anarchic system is intuitively ruled by the fitter (rule of the jungle), and in the case of human societies, the fitter happens to be an authority they don't like: The government!
Human communities are nothing more than a civilized jungle!

In this series:
Debates Over Freedom - Part 1: Introduction
Debates Over Freedom - Part 2: The Dilemma
Debates Over Freedom - Part 3: Darwinistic Freedom
Next: Debates Over Freedom - Part 4: Pipe Dreams