depends on what you mean by “anarchy”
the left and right extremes of its meaning are so vastly disparate it might be one of the least useful words in english.
Discussion
It's meaning is one thing. "Without rulers"
Are leaders “rulers”?
Like a commander, platoon leader, or a squad leader? A mother or father?
If a ruler is simply the head of a hierarchy, if that is its essence, then it’s not congruent with reality, a speculative fantasy which denies the implicit hierarchical nature of human beings.
Idk. Maybe that's the question. This stemmed from philosophical debate around Romans 13, BTW.
Interesting. I think the driving principle here is the relation and distinction between authority and power.
Tyrants and “the state” use power to claim “authority” over others.
The invert the relation.
In Catholic teaching, and Natual Law philosophy, authority references the legitimate holding of a seat or position, and that is the source of power.
So when I read 13 romans, its just saying, a father holds authority over his children, and thus has been given power over them. that power exists only insofar as he maintains his position dutifully, adhering to all his responsibilities.
Then just extend the father child relation to up societally to nations
