Thanks for the feedback, it means a lot to me.

I’m glad you’ve correctly labeled that question as a hypothetical, and I’d go a step further and say it’s an impossible/extremely unrealistic scenario (I know you know this, but want to make sure I lay the right foundation for this comment). As such, it presents a similar moral conundrum as the “railroad switch” moral dilemma, where one must choose to save 5 adults, or one child, by either flipping (or not flipping) a switch by a railroad track.

I guess I’d know what to do in that moment. That said, the state is illegitimate. Built on theft. However, it is none of my personal business really, deciding who is owed (or more importantly, not owed) what, as we have all been stolen from to “pay in” to the system. How can I blame someone for getting some of that extorted money back through “benefits”?

For me, the simple and reality-based, objective answer is this:

In order for minimal violent conflict to be achieved in any society, there must be a universalizable property norm which holds as uncompromisable the individual self-ownership of each and every individual, and by extension, the natural law right to secure property/resources.

Insofar as a society of group of individual market actors can achieve this without systematically violating anyone (basing policy and rules only on natural law property norms), it should be done. People will certainly argue, and debate, and this is a natural part of civilized human interaction. There would certainly be a process to it. A working out of “kinks,” and to be sure, no society would ever be “perfect,” because “perfect” isn’t a “thing.”

However, this process is entirely different than top-down, authoritarian central planning, which is being advocated by @adamkokesh and other political crusaders. Their blind zeal for this type of centralized control reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of basic anarchist principle, and/or a willing ignorance and will to gain illegitimate (in view of property) influence and power.