A minor clarification

Le Creature-
Note that this was originally to be a chapter of another piece, so I was referring to 'confusing' words others hinted at but never pointed to specifically in earlier chapters.

Praxeological economics is the study of economics using the method of praxeology, as Austrian school economists do. Praxeology stresses the importance of methodological individualism, the premise that only individuals act. Which is where I draw my 'atomistic' and 'anarchistic' descriptors from.

The existence of authoritarian regimes does not prove that man is not an anarchist creature. In fact, the brutality of authoritarian regimes is a good indicator that humans aren't built to labor for the 'common good'. Ant and bee queens do not have to coerce their hives into laboring for the benefit of the hive; it is simply in the nature of the drone to do what it does. And, while humans have a much more complex nature, part of which involves seeing other humans as resources to be used, the fact is that humans have to either be coerced into obedience or offered something they value in return for their cooperation. They are social, but only as a consequence of finding other humans useful for their own purposes.

Also, many use the term 'anarchy' to mean chaos — the law of the jungle, if you will — with gangs roaming around killing at will. But, absent their romantic aura of mystification, governments are merely armed gangs who control hunks of territory. If armed gangs exist in anarchy, and governments are merely armed gangs, then the existence of a government of any kind is compatible with anarchy. We still live under the law of the jungle because in the end, that's the only law there is.

While perhaps this is true if you use the argument that "all people have desires therefore no person has rationality," I don't think that's what you meant here. Desires can and are studied every day rationality in psychological institutions the world over. The results seem to concur with the second half of this sentence, that "they precede rational judgment." Rather than "Desires cannot be examined rationally" you mean "Desires are not rational"?

Yeah, the first half of that sentence was pretty lazy. To clarify, what I meant is that desires cannot be measured in terms of rationality; they can't be meaningfully classified as 'rational' or 'irrational'. They are arational.

Finally, I'm well aware that the term objectivist means, in broader philosophy, 'one who accepts the existence of an objective reality'. Sometimes it is used for those who accept the existence of objective moral rules. Though, I think from the context I used the word, and the capital O in Objectivist, I mean Randians in general, and in particular, the crazy ones who venerate the woman as some kind of secular messiah (there are some fairly tolerable Randians). Although, almost any objectivist is likely to commit the fallacy I was highlighting.

Thanks for the helpful review.

watermark-
You do realize I was mostly conducting value-free analysis right? Anyway, I don't want "the poor" to starve, I'm simply indifferent to them. Also, in what way do I favor 'majority rule'? If there was no welfare state, that would not prevent you from feeding bums and hobos should you so desire to allocate your resources to that end. I wouldn't shoot you for opening a soup kitchen.