For a while, I really wanted to write a book that would prove to the reader that the police don't actually protect people, speaking of police shooting statistics, the inability of police to really protect people, and the fact that the police spend most of their time giving out fines and citations and tending to other bureaucratic matters (as david graeber already points out in some of his writings).
But the main problem with this approach is the fact that people don't really want to have law and order for reliable protection, but for general stability and peace of mind very similar to the kind of peace of mind that alarm system companies advertise. The thing that cops, politicians, and other kinds of civil servants do effectively is to keep the society that we live in intact. I see families as a repressive institution, but I strongly sympathize with why people want to start one.
Why should someone who's pretty content with the things that they have see "our" social system as something they want to do away with? For an example of why i find this contradiction problematic, I've read some eco-extremism writings (eco-extremism being basically a kind of green anarchism that advocates doing the most destructive and violent measures available to...) and they think of themselves as egoists and individualists, which I find to be pretty laughable unless you have a complete hatred for other people.
An additional question to this would be: to what extent is stability and safety and illusion?
"Why should someone who's pretty content with the things that they have...?"
could you expand on what you mean by "the things that they have"?
because this part of your question resonates with me...i feel mostly content, but would like to do away with "the social system"...
i don't know if i could answer "why someone should" want to get rid of law and order, but i could at least express why i do (despite my relative contentment).
I don't completely agree with your answer, Syrphant, but I like it. The point I would pick at (outside of possibly crafting my own answer), isthat I would distinguish what you are referring to as ethics, as more morals. I might be splitting hairs, but to my mind a person can hold ethics that are their own, and morals describe the universalized should that I at least take your answer to be addressing.