I have the same problem. I am a Marxist, but not a traditional one. I am heavily influenced by JS Mill, and I think that both are quite easily married. I have actually recently rejected the notion of communism being the next stage of human developement on the dialectic of history. I accept much of Marx' criticism of capitalism and do not see capitalism as a sustainable system - but the next stage is certainly not communism, it may be a later stage, but postulating it in this epoch, would be like the ancient Greeks postulating bourgeois, market capitalism.

I propose that the next stage is co-operativist, co-operatives working within a controlled market economy. It gets rid of exploitation/alienated labour (a concept I think Marx never changes his mind on but simply calls by another name in later works), and can focus on some kind of economic equalities and decent standards of living while not creating the absolute economic equalities that communism would ideally want, absolute economic equality is not desirable. Rawls shows us that there should not be economic equality where it is beneficial to everyone that some people are paid more, doctors for example should get more so there is an incentive for them to do work which helps others.

 Anyway, I'm tired. It's nearly 2am... Need sleep.

Mississippi has passed into law that you can shoot someone on your land with just one verbal warning. And guess what, there are no mass murders no one person has been killed as of yet. People are generally NOT gonna shoot someone else with out good reason.

I don't belive in god, but I'm not a part of the "athiest" activism. I just don't belive. and I let others alone with beliefs. as long as you don't threaten my life, you won't get a .380 slug in the chest. I think that's how most...(even the unwashed masses) think.

1. Libertarianism IS anarchism.

2. Libertarianism is not giving people property rights. It is repsecting the property rights that they naturally have. 

I enforce my own property rights.

This is what I use right now. Expect a Mossberg 590 and a 10/22 to be added soon. 

That problem is much more pronounced under statism, especially when you and your tribe are the ones calling yourselves the state and you own the only defense agency that's legally allowed to operate, and if you don't call yourselves the state then I have the problem of TWO groups that will do that to me. In the market, by contrast, there'd be more than one defense agency serving any given area, there would be contractual penalties for failure to protect (which the state doesn't offer, thus making a private agency much harder to bribe, to say nothing of the effect this scandal would have when people CAN choose a different organization, only at the highest premiums could a private agency be bribed to find it profitable to look the other way).

I'm worse off under a state no matter what the conditions of this scenario are, but it really doesn't matter because this scenario is infrequent to the point of irrelevance. 

If you continue making arguments of the general nature "Everything goes wrong and there's nothing you can do about it", then please do allow me to do the same for you, lest it become obvious that you are a hypocrite.

Suppose your state siezes absolute control of everything despite any restrictions that should have been in it's founding documents, but nobody in power seems to notice or give a fuck, or they're behind it. The people are so thoroughly indoctorinated, stupid, and lazy as they've been made by public schools that they are in support of it, or they don't know, or don't care, or are too passive to do anything about it, because to take the time to think they'd have to miss the big football game, the only free time they have left anymore. You can't own guns to defend yourself against the corrupt police force, and they're indistinguishable from the military anyways, especially after the recent deal leasing surplus or retired harriers (or at least the ones that don't get dumped into the ocean) to the local police force. Your savings account has been made worthless by inflation and you're taxed out of 80% of your income after income, sales, transfer, estate, property, licence, inflation, and other taxes, to speak nothing of the price increases from all the hidden taxes that get built into the sale price. You're in a mountain of debt from the home loan you took out while housing prices were kept up by import tarrifs on the building materials and an artificially low interest rate and an artificially restricted supply that is by law unnecessarily expensive. You can't get out because of your low wages, which you can't get raised because your union, if you have one, has been made irrelevant unless they can work through the state which is owned by the biggest businesses anyways, who you have to work for, ultimately leaving you just barely in the black at the end of the month. Your every move is tracked, scrutinized, regulated, random attacks are made by the government against the people to keep the rams in patriotic, angry, unthinking fervor, while the ewes are kept in terrified submission. Your door is busted down at 2 AM and police rush in with machineguns, yank you out of bed, and demand to know what the white powder in the bag is that you've never seen but they claim they found in your house, and drag you away to be held in a cell without bail while they try you in a secret trial without you being allowed to make a case, without a jury, where they imprison you for possesion of cocaine, with intent to sell, they presume the money you earn is going to support terrorists and covict you of treason, and you're to be killed in the morning at sunrise by firing squad. Your family, if you aren't divorced, will have to take on all your debts in addition to their own.

Isn't this argument annoying? But so effective! It lets me completely evade whatever is likely or unlikely and pull the conditions out of my ass without regard to other effects of the same causes that brought this system to be in the first place. Using this wonderful tool I can base my conclusions on contradictory premises but they're too deeply hidden to be obvious and if you bother to find them I can just deny it anyways and accuse you of avoiding the question. You can't just ask for other conditions or take some way out that I failed to block in my scenario because I can just change the scenario to prevent that route from being available.

But yet, if you have any right to demand a response from me to your stupid situation, you must come up with an adequate response of what you would do in the situation which is not terribly absurd or unthinkable since we're already about 80% there anyways.

And now for the final question you expected me to answer which I highly doubt you adequately are able to without severely compromising your position: Then what?

Who would penalize them depends how compliant the defense agency is. If asking them doesn't work, point to the contract, if that doesn't work, threaten to sue, if that doesn't work, sue, if they refuse arbitration, get another defense agency, take what they owe you, and if they want it back they can go through arbitration or waste money on tit-for-tat theft and theft. They'll probably choose to go to court, where you'll win because they violated the contract. If they do that and they still don't abide by the court, the assumption is that the agency is rouge, and it's agents are corrupt and have refused restitution enough that it is unlikely they'll be held responsible themselves in the future, and so it would basically be okay to kill them. The court would openly declare that it would accept responsibility for any acts taken against the defense agency, since the court is convinced that no other court pretending to any standard of justice would deny the justice of it. Chances are the defense agency would dissolve overnight as all the employees sought to dissociate so as not to get killed, leaving a mostly empty headquarters probably full of stuff for you to take until you get enough stuff of as much value as they owed you, at which point the court would probably rescind it's acceptance of responsibility. It might sound complicated, but it's the application of very simple principles that are more-or-less forgotten in modern statist law.

Self-interest prevents the defense agencies from forming alliances that would screw everyone else over. The self-interest of the defense agencies would have them unite to cartelize and overprice and underserve, but the self-interest of each individual defense agency at that point becomes to undercut the cartel price by just a little bit to attract all the customers. Cartels always fail in free markets for this reason. Then un-cartelized defense agencies would also be undercutting even if that didn't happen, they'd be creating a ripe market for others to come in, not only from outside, but for other defense agencies to spout up in the area. They couldn't easily ally because it's too easy of an industry to get into (if you own a gun and know how to use it, you're in), it's too easy to provide for yourself in most circumstances, the market is too slippery for them to get a hold on when it has no chains.

It doesn't spiral into organized crime within 10 minutes of implementation because it was organized crime just 11 minutes before. Anarchy is just whatever you have when there isn't a cop within eyeshot, earshot, or gunshot. The government is just people. Any corrupt action you can envision a private organization doing, public organizations are guilty of tenfold. People in government are not less corruptible than other people, they are MORE corruptible. A defense-agency cartel planning things so as to fuck us all over is what we have right now, and there's almost no hope of recourse against it due to "sovereign immunity", cops that kill kids for no reason are given a desk job for a few weeks while a "thorough investigaton" is done, not tried for murder, while the most you can do about a corrupt sherriff is to vote him out at the next election, and even then, it isn't who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes. Any charge you can level at an anarchist society of corruption, rampant violence unchecked, might makes right, are charges that are much more easily directed toward the state itself. The government is corrupt, the government is an organization of rampant unchecked violence (especially once they call it a war), the government functions on the principle that might makes right.

I'm not aware of any accusation made against anarchy that the government is not guilty of itself.

No, it's compliant with the highest laws, the laws of nature, the laws of human action, and the laws of economics.

Whoever you choose.

Not every single one. I personally find it doubtful that most people would even have need of a defense agency (that is the correct term, "defense agency", because "local contractor" and such could refer to any business endeavor), as it is much cheaper to buy a gun and a few boxes of ammo once than keep paying for others to do what is rather unproductive and not effective as a deterrent. But if I'm wrong in that, people would stay on the ball as much as they need to. If one insurance company is refusing to pay the health insurance they said they would, people will get word of that around. If one defense agency isn't protecting, that would get around. It's not like if people said "Nike hires indians to make shoes, boycott Nike", this directly affects them.

Not law enforcement. Police these days have two jobs, law enforcement, and protection. They mostly do the former, and only do the latter in the rarest occurances. Law enforcement is slavery, protection is not.

The current system of law enforcement is not subject to the laws of supply and demand. The defense agencies I'd prefer to see would be subject to supply and demand and all the laws of economics that tend to bring lower prices and better service.

As I gave in the apocalypse scenario of statism, nobody cares. That's the scariest part of that scenario I gave, that most of the stuff in it came right out of real life. 

No, this is unnatural. The way it happened in America was through the conflation of patriotism and nationalism. Without a nation, this conflation is impossible. Governments differ from other sources of power because they are not merely guns. They are lies, backed by guns, backed by lies. Without lies, such leviathans don't form. Non-governmental leviathans form because they can springboard off the government's lies. If it was a mere question of firepower, there would be no leviathans.

You don't have to do that now, you wouldn't have to under anarchy.

Because it's much easier to negotiate with public bureaucrats and get them to negotiate with private contrators, pay those contractors with money they stole from you, then not tell you how much they paid the contractor (by sheer coincidence, a good friend of the bureaucrats) to get it fixed. Much easier. It's not an unnecessary layer, it's not a wasteful expense, and you really don't care how much it costs anyways.

 They would be vigilant if they were not lied to in the way they are.

It depends on the specific circumstances, obviously. If the guilty is not compliant at all, the court would use guns, or would give some other agents the authority to do so, with the court itself accepting responsibility. This may be preferred for some people, but you may have to pay to have the court take responsibility for you.

Of course anybody could do that, you could do it yourself without a court if you wanted, but your hired guns would expect such absurdly higher pay to act (legally speaking) of their own accord rather than under your authority (thus making them immune to litigation by your supposed aggressor and shifting all blame onto you), that using such a group criminally would be extremely expensive or risky, whereas using them legally much less expensive.

I suspect some decade or so after people realized how reliable the system is, one could almost walk into the headquarters, give your name and proof of identification, take whatever of theirs you believe you are owed with little objection from them, and wait to see if they sue you for "their" property back. If they do, you could just go in and prove the debt, settle the details with them, and go back home. If they don't, then it's essentially your property. It might even after some generations become possible to go to the bank (possibly with evidence of the debt) and demand money out of their account, leave your name and address or something with the bank, have it directed into your account, and then wait to see if you're sued. This would be a much more peaceful, efficient system than costly litigation, lawyers, setting up appointments, et cetera. I wouldn't expect to see it very rapidly instituted but I think it would eventually lead to this.

Your question is analagous to "who determines whether copper is conductive or an insulator?" Nobody can make elemental copper unconductive. But everybody can determine whether or not copper is conductive by testing it for themselves or basing their determinations on the trials of others.

The only question of law under anarchy is "Who has the right to make which decisions?" The rules for determining this are fairly easy to discover, and are in most cases simply intuited. What my hands create is mine. What is mine that I give to others is theirs. What belongs to others that they give to me, becomes mine. This is very simple and easy to understand.

From that point on, it becomes a question of conflict resolution, determining who is the rightful owner of what. When two people both claim the same object, a conflict exists. Determining who must give up control and under what terms is between the two conflicting parties, and none other. If I take control of something which I had no right to, all that is needed to come back under the consistency of the law is that I give it back, compensate the rightful owner for the time-use lost, and justice has been restored.

If A kills B, then A has taken control of the life of B (and then destroyed it). A thus owes whatever price B put on his own life (determined by a life insurance policy or a written record) to whoever B has willed the money to go to. 

 So to answer your questions:

1. No limited group of people determine what is legal.

2. The question is precluded by the answer to 1. 

I don't see the connection. Care to elaborate?

Also I'd like to ask: Are you starting from the conclusion that anarchy won't work and looking for reasons why, or are you actually open-minded and thinking about what I'm telling you?