The diffence of 老子之Laǒzǐ's philozophy

老子's philozophy and his view on law are often criticed in this times , by legalist's moves. Ideas of legalist school concerning the law were adopted, by stupidity of humans, also in countries, with out of direct contact with legalism, becouse they are one of firsts (but innatural) human's ideas. Already in prehistory human has domesticated and schooled dog and human has started then looking for an analogy beetween human and dog. (If dog makes badly, a human beats him and he becames obedient, if it cannot defance it's self, If dog makes well , a human rewards it, and it then wants to repeat.) Procedure like that is undermining existing morality and conscience. Despite this it was regarded to be right, becouse a prize is one of best variants of persuasion. On human especially in more important situations stonger emotions than dopamine influance. In situations like as firm, sport ect. ect. a human bahave as they wouldn't have importance (A human doesn't think then about them.) and then there are not in human bad emotions. ( At least then, when an influence is the biggest.) 
However when we talk here about countrie's orders , there are much more bad emotions and that is based on fear. We can rule dog based on prizes and punishments. Dog has not got morality. Human has. 
Other thing, which forces alternative is that, human is more complex emotionaly , than dog. After order dog will adapt though teeth will be the first impulse , on seen stick. 
After order human will recognize order to be a suggestion , that for him/her(/it) it is natural , to break that (order). 
Apart from that, the general reason of breaking law is (especially if it goes about smaller orders) adrenaline concurrent that. This adrenaline is caused , by avoiding the punishment.
So the law is increasing number of crimes. 
Therefore how to replace the law? 
According to Plato material things reflect the world of ideas. The sun of the ideas word , on which we can look after a some time, the good is. The good is generally already ideal , being base of our world and metaphysical. 
So if there were at least two people with different concepts of the good , there would must be a few things incoherent with each other simultaneously, what is not the truth. (The good(好物hao3wu4） is objective and absolutic. Goods（貨huo4) are relativic.) 
Let's give example here.: Usaully war was perceived as neccessarity , but already in Axial Age , people like 墨子（mòzǐ) which wanted to enteral peace. Obviously I as 道家人(道（dao4)-ist) can sign under that it is not possible , but noone would sign under that it would be ideal , if people always kill each other. Therefore peace is good and war is bad , this what is good and this , what is bad , people knows subconsciously.
The next thing is the neccessarity of 為無為（wei2wu2wei2）and allegations directed into this aspect. 為無為 is the quote of 老子, quoted often. It can be translated as 'making don't make' , or often omited 'make and don't make' (that omition is the cause of these allegations). It does not mean laziness. In oldchineese and most probably in this book there weren't punctuation marks , becouse of this reason , it could be 為、無為(with comma(in mentioning)). It is one of many word play in oldchineese in this tractate. We can interpret this (為無為)as a process.
The next thing , which we should disscuss is already practic issue concerning introduction. According to Eugen Dühring and Ludwig Gumplowicz(Gumplovich) , country arise in result of conquest and violence. After overthrow of country , especially if country , organizations working only for money will replace , a new and worse country will appear , working for the reachest of society , irrespective of inteligence had , by them. 老子 hadn't , as one of earlier anarchist , written statements against country.
Therefore let's consider a possibility of country. If there is not law , there must be right people to prevent willfulness , to what it is difficult to deny. Judiciary can still function , becouse of objectivity of the good. To discourage people wanting to have unethical profits from bad governing , we should to discourage them to that did , making governing unprofitable. 
So from where would be coordinator ( I am purposefully avoiding words concerning governing , becouse control , 道 has. Nevertheless that person can has designation dependent on culture , also of emperor , though she/it/he wouldn't be it/her/he , at least in the confucianist and legalist meaning. 
Big infuence on life , upbringing/education and coordinator can be any prepeared person , but best is , when he/it/she doesn't want to it. Therefore prepearing to it should be from about third or fourth year of life. If coordinator is governing in in an inproper way(he/it/she has to only coordinate anarchy , to strongers in muscles don't do excessively harm of weakers , to an other worse country won't arise.) People then have right and possibility to deprive her/him/it of life and exchange (her/him/it) , but he/it/she has moral right and possibility to defance. (Defence is not attack. [Attacking other only to be not attacked is not defance and moral. If you attack innocent person , in that way , you can tell , that you are defancing , becouse you are making others being scared of you and to they won't attack. And if it would be moral , noone would attack you for morality too.]) Generaly , there won't be law , so cheats too , with prooving neccessarity of changing (ruler). For coordinator , it is prohibited to defance in her/his/it's matter referring to human rights. If I know well people , they will fear to start a riot , also in justified situation , therefore there won't be willfulness. Coordinator will be deprived of right to possession of property too.
(Of) Legal order and finer coordination , monastery consisting of members of differences religions will take care of. It will be male-female. I think that , people not living in(who don't live in luxury) glamor , will can gain less , and in result (they) 'll be more honest and with out of existing the law , court's sentences and talks about them , will be more substantive. I think that some issues being considered in antiquity , were too quickly accepted emotionaly , and unconsidered enough , for example 墨子 's considerations about family. With out of the law and things generally emotionaly accepted , we 'll can come back to it. 
The last thing to disscuss is the default way of choosing(coordinator). This person has to have good preparation. If this person would be choosed defaultly , there will be biggish problem becouse of lack of willings or also it will make increase in value of money in politics and {of} want of manipulation. Therefore it should be default inheriting , being voided in revolution. It will be in the elder child. There is possibility to many deviations and this part too is not limiting. Changes should be made up to date according to social situation. If the elder , doughter would be , the position will can be shared and to more dyplomatic issues , the elder of sons will be used as her broker , to she can focus on more essential issues. This decission should be left to society. The same must be done with inheriting , becouse unethical is forcing to have offspring , becouse it take the possibility of working , to which human is going to. Therefore there should be possibility of change of default inheritœr on offspring of the eldest of sons. 

I am waiting for support and critique.