We are responsible to earn our own living

We cry when the chief dies because we no longer have the advantage of their protection. But we are protected by the abundance of other people. Other people will protect us if we are vulnerable, and they can, if it is of little (relative) cost to them. People naturally (want to) look after each other, so why would we want to kill others? It is good to have other people around...

There is no need for a King, or Queen.

We don't need to make it a law that we must look after other people, it happens already. We do not need to make it the law to not hurt others, because if we are so stupid to do so, there will be natural consequences; people will defend themselves. We are protected already. There is nothing to fear from other people. Why would you be hated?

If we are fearful of others, we might feel that it is appropriate to give them bribes to make them less likely to attack, but this does not end well. We should not be fearful so that we end up giving people money not to attack us, if we do that, we will never stop paying. Are taxes protection money to be given to those without sufficient property? If yes, then the inequality should be remedied immediately, if there is one. Otherwise why should we pay, is there unfairness?

Have we wronged those without money, yes, but can we right that wrong or must we always pay money to those who have nothing. Is it an insurance policy against having nothing, if yes then we can spend money for all time and still have money to spend; it is bottomless, then. If we cannot starve, then we have limitless resources to spend.

How much should the poor be given? Should the poor be recipients for all time? The poor are different from a tame animal and can provide for themselves...

I am not helpless. If I consume more than I am capable to earn, must others look after me? Only if they want to since we have problems of our own. If I have done good and done work for others, does that mean we have a right to make someone else do the same? Failure to help is not harmful to anyone.

We have no duty or obligation to others and have not been lucky in life; it is not a problem if we are more beautiful, or more fit than others. We are not owed compensation from other people for the fact that they are more capable than us, otherwise achievement would be equivalent to a crime, since it would be subject to the use of (negative) force as a consequence.

If a competitor removes our market by making a product much more cheaply, this is not an attack on us, personally. We are not owed an easy livelihood. It is not our fault if we are more successful. Whilst it might be legitimate to disrupt a very successful trade, for example to make prostitution an offence so that other people are able to sell their bodies, it does not make sense to punish the person who profits. So it might make sense to punish a particular activity or process, but not the person who is doing it: It doesn't make sense to punish success.

It would only be a crime to run a successful restaurant if to run a restaurant is itself a crime.

We are not due compensation for failure to be able to earn a living, only if we have been wronged, which many of us have been as a consequence of inequality of land ownership and other things.