Since there is a moral system that one can subscribe to that allows you to convert something immoral into something moral, please have a look at this: [The Magic Threshold](https://steemit.com/political/@inertia/how-to-explain-that-taxation-is-theft-using-the-magic-threshold)

>Basically, the point I'm trying to make here is that taxation is theft. It seems to me that the average person believes taxation is not theft. They believe theft is immoral and taxation is just not seen as immoral. I'm going to question this notion. The basis is that if one person "taxes" you, it's theft. But if multiple people tax you, somehow it's not theft (assuming they've taken the necessary precaution of writing words on paper, also known as "law").

For the first three, you answered a question with a question. The fourth was meaningless politician evasion. The fifth was an excuse to not answer. I'm done.

he was asking you to answer these questions within the moral system that you subscribe to.   You probably want to retry this one.  Sophistry isn't going to go anywhere.

First off, "Anarchic governance" is a contradiction in terms.

Second: "Anarchists, and exposing the reality of the systems they endorse."
What? There's just one system: systematic voluntary interactions and the recognition of the consistent application of rights in society.

Third, you did a terrible job answering Larken Rose's questions, and you admitted to moral relativism. If you do not subscribe to any sort of definite morality, you have no means of having an intelligent discussion regarding any sort or form of morality (way of living).

Your only strength, thus, is and will be clever word games and evasion. You will not be pleasant to talk with, and the only upvotes you will or can get will be those who just enjoy drama for the sake of drama.

I'll put some words in your mouth, which you'll hate and will entirely focus on, but your behavior is scum-ish, and I want people to see clearly what they're dealing with when they talk with you: by saying that you perscribe to "a world of self interests" your moral code is that of Self-Interest, which means that you live by that which is in your interest. 

That means that other people, water, food, and so forth are in your interest, assuming that you want to live, which I think is a decent assumption. If you don't, then disregard this comment, as well as the entirety of the steemit website. You won't need it if you're dead.

The requirements for the satisfaction of your self-interest are the consistent application of rules in society because without that, your Self will be in poverty, as is currently the case, since a society based on inconsistently-applied rules where there are exceptions to the rules (rulers) is one where poverty is the constant and the norm, such as this one.

Therefore, you, while pandering to the notion that you do not subscribe to a moral code, subscribe to the moral code of self-interest, and this conflict and dissonance of thought is the core of your contention that anarchists advocate "systems" and types of "governance".

You are an extremely confused individual, which is why the likes of Larken Rose was like, 
"Eh. Yuck."

As I expected, you're full of hot air. Fitting that you're on steemit.
And hey, if your name is what you're doing... somewhat decent job.
But you really need to take more of a position. You're boring as fuck.