>>323762904
To some degree yes, many of the laws end up protecting the victimizers over the victims. Such as duty to retreat, or the lack of castle doctrine and the requirement "to feel your life is threatened". Or one of my personal baines, not being legally able to kill someone for trying to steal your car. Which is your horse essentially. This is supported with nonsense like "life is more valuable than things". As if you're hard-earned valuables are an extension of yourself, and with your inability to defend them, the government ensures that they actually own that property instead of you. The bureaucrats were basically proxies, men that exercise the will of the people. That was in design of course, the lack of term limits and rise of career politicians created the oligarchy. 
Unfortunately I cannot abide by complete anarchy, because when I drive to work everyday, I'm nearly run off the road by idiots who by my authority would be slain right there for putting me in danger. Now multiply that by thousands and you'll have a constant state of warfare. You'd essentially get what senator Armstrong was talking about and that metal gear rising game. You'd keep out the aristocracy, but with such subjective laws, only nature would be the true foundation. It would be a much harder world to live in, similar to many African countries. I've been there. I can't discredit your position of course, because the system I look upon isn't successful either, it's death has only been slow. It is still inevitable.