1. "Should one not desire to accept such compromises, then one is effectively asserting a desire for anarchy. If that is your goal, then that is certainly within your right, but you are declaring that you wish to be a member of no state and as such you cannot be surprised that there is nothing to protect your right to be such. " - That is my goal, I'm not surprised.
2. "Look at it this way: Let's assume that some piece of land existed somewhere that was not owned by some entity. Further let's assume you are the one who discovers this land, and you claim it." -I'd never claim it, I don't believe in private property.
3."A neighbor could walk into your house and take or destroy any item within without repercussion (except any that you might personally deal out). If your neighbor is physically larger and stronger than you and better armed, you'd likely be unable to stop your neighbor (natural law). - I know this, and anarchy is still preferable for anyone could still destroy me right now if they truly wished except I get all the negatives of govt. to boot.

4."No laws would mean that you wouldn't have to be paid for work that you'd performed. After all, contract enforcement is part of law as is minimum wage. If you have an agreement with an employer to do work for a given wage and the employer refuses to pay, what authority would you turn to in a lawless environment?" - no one cuz I wouldn't work. I'm anti-work. there's no need to work, ever.
5."In such a situation, basically every person would have to provide for themselves in all areas. Each person would have to become a shoemaker, tailor, smith, farmer, carpenter, etc. to assure that the basic essentials would be met, because no laws would mean that at any time, any person could take advantage of any other person without penalty." - it's doubtful one would not have to learn all of these skillz as they could share, trade, or barter them for services in return and such w/ same-interest individuals of various anarcho-communites.
6."You state "It's wrong! It's not fair to me ..." I ask the following: How is it wrong (be clear and well thought out)? - It's wrong because I say it's wrong, because I say it's not in accordance w/ my limited & ever-expanding viewpoint of the world around me To me there is no inherent right or wrong, only the subjective, only me(*Ethical Egotism.)

7."Define fair (be clear and objective)." -There is no objectivity. I cannot for arguments sake seperate from myself or my subjective perception of experiance to supply you w/ an objective opinion of "fair." However I'll be clear & subjective all the same. Fair to me is synonomous w/ equal or equality, if something is not equal than is it's not fair & vice versa. Government's do not treat me w/ equality, as it is an entity which inherently must take on a superior stance inorder to act out it's functions. Individuals must give up certain liberties and lesser themselves inorder to give a government ultimate power in deciding "criminals" fates. "Fair" is an abstract term invented by man, it's "objectively" in definable.
8."You claim that your personal freedoms don't end where another freedom's begin when you state that "The death of everything in the cosmos, short of me, is an acceptable loss for my freedom." As such, then someone else could also assert that your death is an acceptable loss for their freedom. How would you reconcile those two viewpoints without societal agreements (laws)? Please be clear in your response." -I'm not sure if I understand the question, but in the absence of man-made laws natural law (might makes right) would reign supreme. There is a point when things begin to become contradictive between man-made laws & natural law that I've not entirely mapped out, language itself is prolly to blame.

9."Since you are so fond of natural law, you won't mind sending Lennox Lewis your computers, your physical property and all of your money, right? I mean I doubt that you're likely to beat him in a fight, and as such, natural law would suggest that he could basically take those things if he desired them. Hey, for that matter, I'm a pretty big guy. Perhaps I'll train for a bit and walk to my neighbor's house and take his new car (I wouldn't have to train much, he's much smaller than I am and he's getting kind of old). After that, perhaps I'll start walking into banks and taking the money. As long as I can raise the firepower, why not? I mean with only "natural law", I won't have to worry about police, right?" - Right, you wouldn't have to worry about police, does this not please you? Strength is not only measured in muscle mass. The strong proclaim their own rights by defending them through their own force, the weak must be told thiers, to scavage about w/ whatevers left. "To what property am I entitled to? To every property to which I empower myself."-max stirner
10."In short, they exchanged certain freedoms to escape chaos. Consider that chaos is not likely going to be an improvement on the current situation." - I think the "chaos" is the lesser of 2 evils.



*Ethical Egotism- the view that we always ought to be motivated by self-interest.

__________________
<---Click on it