The sacred concept of anarchism has never been fully elucidated. This is because it always carries a materialistic conclusion. Prior to the understanding of anarchism, one must reach the phase (origination) of non-materialism. But, how does one engage within a field of non-materialism? This is the idea.
DISCUSSION:
Anarchy is simply the opposite characteristic of hierarchy. Dualistic notions are usually false, however; hierarchy is the destructive value which comes to oppose the state of something which doesn't exist, and therefore it is the instantiation of a negative state, via positivism.
If one goes to court, in our system of laws, instead of presenting a book of laws, a judge walks out, and 'all must rise'. One sometimes is encouraged to place their hand on the Bible to swear an oath, but this very same book declares that one should never swear an oath (let your yes be yes, and your no be no [Matt5/37]). Thus it is obviously bastardized theology, which wasn't the point of the Bible. Further, it is cognitive dissonance.
If we are to live in a 'system of laws', then there should be no need to stand when a judge enters a court. The law is the law. But what the judicial branch stands to recognize is their authority to 'interpret the law'. Why is this necessary? Because human hands cannot create justice, but only knowing cognition which is applied per case. Thus we stand as an act of involuntary submission, in which a judge might dilute their ruling, or maximize it, based on subservience, or relative adherence to subservient traits.
One is deemed to be a good person if they are subservient—not to the law—but to the judicial representative. As an example. AI could better accomplish this role with an algorithm, which would at least be uniform.
A judge is simply incapable of being impartial. Though a defendant may refuse to stand, though actually innocent due to which they do not emply a lawyer—a refusal might easily be used against them. Whereas a guilty party with a good lawyer who stands might have an advantage. This is the nature of hierarchy, which has ample historical implications which one need only do the merest of inquiries to find.
In an anarchical conception, nobody is 'above the law' (if we are to be stubborn in our system of 'rule of law' [not persons]). Thus nobody should stand if a judge enters a court.
Further, law itself cannot be a governing instrument, due to the loophole analogy. Therefore a judge is required to 'adjudicate'—not only the law, but external circumstances which cannot be found in a book of laws, such as whether a murderer was killing their tormenter. But if we wrote that into law, anyone could determine their victim to be a 'tormenter', and writing what constitutes torment would be filled with loopholes.
Thus, the anarchist society, which may well be founded on laws, should not elevate the judge, or beyond that, anyone, into a position of holiness, before which we must stand as a matter of custom, as this indicates corruption of values and a degradation of the concept of 'rule of law'.
The problem is not 'judges', or judicial order, but reverence for individuals.
When we place individuals above ourselves, for whatever reason (and the example of judges is merely that, an example, not an indictment), we open the door to intellectual obfuscation.
Anarchism is merely the absence of hierarchy, which is the state of nature. Nobody gives a right to the lion to devour a gazelle. It is presupposes.
In human relation, when we begin presupposing that certain individuals possess extraordinary values which they may or not possess, we are engaging in unnatural processes, while pretending they are natural.
If we went by nature, only the strong would survive, and the strongest, most cunning and ruthless individuals would rule. Which is why not standing before a judge, or giving needless fealty to individuals with outsized power due to necessity, is the moral cause.