Facts, such as temperature measurements at certain places at certain times, can be written down. They stand there as reliable numbers.
However, the interpretation of the facts is something quite different from the facts themselves. Those who speak of an objective world can nevertheless not themselves be objective, since every interpretation of facts entails establishing relationships, such as how temperature measurements relate to harvests, for example. You have the degree measurements on one side and the crop yield figures on the other. Between these is the path of interpretation. This can be completely off the mark, as we know. For you only have to take another column like "amount of water coming down per square foot" or "sealed surfaces in area xy" into the view and it's going to influence the interpretation.

Historiography that tells about human actions uses a language that does not primarily output measured and recorded numerical values, but is based on interpretation, at best on the basis of previously used factual numerical and measured values. Often, however, it does not do this at all. Its end product is merely language, but it does not offer open question spaces where, for example, different columns of statistical numbers and values are presented side by side, leaving the reader of the story in uncertainty about the interpretation. It would be a far more exciting history lesson if education would be done in this way, offering no end results but leaving the reader/student wondering. A history teacher could do experiments of these kinds with his students in a fun way. Do you know the book "Freakonomics"? There is much talk about numbers and causalities and correlations in it and how false they can be.

In fact, we living in the present have no comparison to situations of non-government. Since we cannot tell how it is to live outside zivilisation.

The only other choice is to rule ourselves and jointly regulate our acts, exactly as Providence and the laws of the natural universe provide and demand.

If you happened to meet one on the street and you said such things, he would not understand you. Not my friends or family would understand such things. "To rule over oneself" (that is what everyone thinks he is doing), "to regulate actions together", that is also what the common man thinks is happening (and in a way, he is right), but there is probably no agreement on what Providence and the laws of the natural universe demand. At least not explicitly. Perhaps implicitly, and perhaps the best thing would be to keep quiet about it anyway. Since talking seems to lead to war and conflict.

But there is a text which much better expresses what I mean.

https://anarchism.net/anarchism_insanityasthesocialnorm.htm

Though I probably would not agree on everything the author says. Maybe you find it worth reading.