According to Bakunin and Kropotkin, in future only unenacted law will exist.
According to Proudhon, there ought to exist in future only the single legal norm that contracts must be lived up to.[1166]
II. With regard to what they have in common in their relation to law, the seven recognized Anarchistic teachings here presented may be taken as equivalent to the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings. In their relation to law they have nothing in common. Much less, therefore, can the entire body of recognized Anarchistic teachings have anything in common in their relation to law.
Furthermore, as regards the specialties that they exhibit in their relation to law the teachings here presented may be taken as equivalent to the entire body of Anarchistic teachings without limitation. For the specialties represented among them can be arranged as a system in which there is no room left for any more co-ordinate specialties, but only for subordinate. No Anarchistic teaching, therefore, can have any specialty that will not be subordinate to these specialties.
Therefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of Anarchistic teachings altogether. In their relation to law they have nothing in common, and are to be divided as follows with respect to the differences of this relation:
| Anomistic Teachings | Nomistic Teachings |
| Godwin Stirner Tolstoi | Proudhon Bakunin Kropotkin Tucker |
4.—THE STATE
I. In their relation to the State—that is, to the legal relation by virtue of which a supreme authority exists in a territory—the seven teachings here presented have something in common.
1. They have this in common, that they negate the State for our future.
There cannot be given a more precise definition of what the teachings here presented have in common in their relation to the State than has here been given. For the negation of the State for our future has totally different meanings in them.
