Summarize, eh, Marcus Lycus? All right. The key understanding is that there is no such thing as an authority to violate rights. There can be no delegated right or authority to initate force against anyone who has not themselves violated rights. Whatever organizations are voluntary and explicitly contracted for are legitimate. Those which presume to authority to confiscate property or otherwise infringe on the rights of others are immoral, and in a just society, resisted or at least eschewed by any moral person.

If one wants something, one pays for it, makes it oneself, trades for it, or receives it as a gift. If one wants to organize, the organization must be voluntary, not presumed under some sort of collectivist mysticism based upon race, religion, tribe, or geographical location. If one wants to partake of the goods and services of others, one obtains voluntary permission through persuasion, not plunder.

There is the operating criterion for any just organization or individual in a free society that claims to respect the common humanity. Any organization, organized for any purpose not violative of these means is legitimate. This would include any organization created for the purpose of providing security, or redress of grievances or dispute resolution.

From each and to each according to his ambitions, talents, and desire to produce and trade, or to be the recipient or donor of voluntary largess. There is nothing wrong with the Golden Rule other than the fact that people keep looking for loopholes and exceptions to it.

I am amused by how smoothly the description of how things would work in Mincapistan can be applied to the glorious workers' paradise. That the similarities are papered over in heroic individualism and them vigorously denied only adds to the ironic humor.