And where does the justification for this rule of law come from?

Necessity and consent of the majority. Anarchists are a minority, most people want a government.

It means it's all a farce. In regards to "citizens", one can't prove citizenship. Citizenship is allegiance to a body politic based on having protection provided, but since government courts have admitted to there being no such thing as protection, then there also exists no allegiance.

Protection is more than just police intervention, it's the knowledge that criminal behavior will be punished.

So you admit that the government itself is a criminal organization. We're on a good track here now.

Absolutely not, that was worded poorly. Either way what do you have to say? You know it's true, if an Amish community went and settled in a land without law, eventually they would be at the mercy of criminals. Are you saying they would be better off?

Without government's monopoly on law, security, and even on first-class mail, the market full of entrepreneurs will fill in the demand for such services. These services of course would be consensual, contract-based, unlike the one that's coerced with government guns.

The problem with depending on markets for basic human necessities like law, security, and first class mail is that they're entirely dependent on wealth. I'd rather not live in a place where my security is entirely dependent on how much I can pay for it.

Government is unsustainable. Its collapse is inevitable. The dollar -- a monopoly on currency -- has already lost 97% of its value since 1913.

Ultimately every human institution collapses. So what? Currencies go up and down all the time, the decline of the dollar has more to do with monetary policy than the fact that the government has a monopoly.