I don't see what you mean in your conclusion: "But a country without a ruler, without a system, without a law is no country at all. So even the anarchist's would get lost in their utopian dream where a person doesn't obey to anyone or anything." I'll try to explain what the truth appears to be so you can see how you came to your false and improperly grammatically structured conclusion. Here is my take on the matter: A country (geographical region) without a ruler, without a system based on a monopoly of violence (both aggressive and in some cases defensive) with respect for Natural Law and Spontaneous Order isn't Utopian by any means, but it is much more preferable to more centralized dictates, as it allows for competition between free market providers of defense for their voluntarily contracted customers, and their justly acquired property. The market, or Agora, is what makes civilization possible where as, the believe in giving a group of people special rights to rule over others causes most of the chaos and poverty in the world. A real anarchist believes in giving every individual their inalienable right to freedom so long as they don't violate others natural rights. Anarchy has different meanings to different people, but true anarchy means that there are no governments, including other types of coercive entities such as war lords, as people have come to rely on themselves and their voluntary interactions within markets free of manipulation from physically aggressive institutions.