Which I've said many times, is an absurd contradiction in terms.
I feel I must quote myself here...
Unspoken/unwritten ones means subjective, undefinable, rules that are based off of whims.
They are not undefinable, I just defined them for you.
No whims involved, they have been the basis of civilization throughout known history. I have yet to see a civilization that didn't use them as a base for the laws.
There is no such thing as a "community"; when you say "community", you mean "a group of individuals".
Quit with the false definitions, they just make you look like an idiot... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/community
Wait, nevermind... Keep up the false definitions, they make you look like an idiot.
I think I mentioned this before, but I'll post it again anyways.
You're looking at your ideal world and comparing it to the worst you can think of for mine. How about I just start portraying your ideals where the judges are all paid off to make a ruling based on what just one person wants, or where the government is corrupt enough to put a idiot on the bench who can't find truth if it walked up and slapped him repeatedly while yelling "I'm the truth"?
This is Argument from Dismissal fallacy. Just because I'm free to leave does not invalidate my claim that anarchy is wrong.
You have a problem with how it's run, and no one will change, you leave. How has it ever been different anywhere? Why do you think that should ever change? How would you change it, and how could you ever change it?
Your context-dropping skills continue to baffle me.
There's a reason for the court and the appeal system: the government presents their evidence to a judge and the defendant questions the evidence. If any party feels important evidence was missing, they can appeal. Each hearing is fair and most importantly, objective.
Men are not infallible: that's why even if the public is certain that a suspect is guilty, he still receives a fair trial to review the evidence. *additional unrelated content*
Same goes for stealing. What is stealing? What are the degrees of punishment for certain times of stealing? Again, no man can flip through a book and learn what exactly is forbidden and what exactly would be the punishment should he choose to commit the crime; they would only be answered through unwritted laws--subjective laws that are impossible to follow. You said there wouldn't be a court of law. So...an individual is suspected of stealing and the mobs just raids his house? That's certainly what it seems like you're telling me.
You can't drop a context and expect everything else to be the same. Out of context, "murderers and thieves would be punished in anarchy by the community" sounds great--in its context, it's whim-worshiping mob rule.
*additional unrelated content*
First off, it's not if you suspect something, it's if someone did something. If you suspect your friends of lying to you, do you go around telling everyone that they lie, or do you wait and find proof of their lie, and then confront them with it? Same principle...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
Do unto others... In other words, whatever he/she steals gets returned, and the reparations are equivalent/equivalent value item/s removed from the possession of the thief... This I already mentioned, though you seem to have conveniently forgotten that part. (and many others along the way)
If you're thinking of someone that doesn't have anything of value stealing something, he would likely be expelled from the community and told not to return on pain of death. (whether it is just an idle threat or not depends on how serious the crime is) If it's a minor thing like stealing food to stay alive, why wouldn't it just be forgiven? There are very few people in the world that selfish.
