We obviously have much more to talk about than just this one thread.

---

Your specific examples all have merits. I don't know if I can make valid counterclaims that you couldn't make valid counterclaims to, so maybe I'll leave this thread here as it is. An example of intractable counterclaims would be on the topic of restrictive laws. I know some laws are written with wild leeway for the law enforcement authorities (eg. malfunctioning automobile taillight), and I know that they do this for a reason; to detain people without probable cause that would hold up in court whereas the timely circumstantial evidence appears to convict the person of interest. The tail-light stop is nearly never used by authorities, and at times I see them driving with a tail-light out, but if a person driving (in a law-abiding way), inside a matching car that was identified in an armed robbery, with the same number of occupants, the nearby police would make a stop claiming the tail-light was out even if it was functioning (can't prove it wasn't for a moment when he looked). If the routine check on the occupants seemed normal they are let off with a warning, if not, then it escalates. I assume you would argue that this is regularly abused by our racist cops to convict innocent people just so they can claim to have done their job. I would agree. I would counter that if the laws go to the other extreme to heavily protect the innocent (which is what we claim to do), then this will be easily exploited by the people of criminal intent. These are intractable because we must make a subjective decision as to whether we want to convict more innocent people or free more guilty people. It's really hard to decide where to cut the baby in half. I honestly can't decide whether I'd favor a feckless leader with all power or a competent benevolent authoritarian or a de facto deity with no authority running the collective intent of a group of people. Pure democracies seem to be mathematically unstable and rife to break into warring fragments.

Anyway, it appears that while we were arguing, others like the Sylvester McMonkey-McBean's of the world were building a "Star-off machine".
Halfway down they talk about two companies creating countermeasures to video fraud.

In closing, I've never been convinced that Anarchism was a valid approach to life in general due to the state of human nature. I'm not unwilling to have my mind changed, but not in this thread. Start a new one or tag me into an existing one that will get me up to speed on why you think it's a working framework for humanity. eg: I have no idea what this meant

large-scale anarchism with morals instead of laws