lol all that just to say that the anarchist are right or is a win-win...
You know you can probably do the exist same game with the opposite.
Actually, even if the law is biased toward x or y, you can still act accordingly, while in a no-law land (can't even say state any more), the "ruling" issued by the most powerful guy with the biggest gun will just be as he pleases him. Meaning you can't act accordingly the law and can get hanged for whatever reason...
By the way, laws exist not because of politician but because, sometimes you need to make a decision over a problem 2 (or more) people can't resolve on their own. Hence the law takes a decision, says who's right and wrong, and this is done according law or common usage (which are laws... ).
And if there are laws is that because 2 people is some case will never agree on anything... hence a "judge".
well, if I just said "anarchism is a win-win", that would be too boring. 2. It wouldn't educate nobody as to the various types of arguments out there. and 3. It is much more fun to actually make arguments and points.
Also, the issue is not that the statist can say, "in a stateless society you can't have x" or "with a state you can't have y". but rather, that of weighting the worse case scenarios of each, and the best case scenarios of each, and then making a decision.
I feel a rebuttal is in order...but I have no idea where to start. So I will just disagree with everything except the "lol". You are right Matthew can be funny!