However, you have to make that initial recognition that the one family  did win the round, and this should be considered a secondary, anarchy game.

Perhaps you could explain your justification, glue.

Petition to rename the "Petition to change the title of this thread to 'Welcome Back Arnor'" to the "Petition to congratulate Zarf BeebleBrix for thinking of such an awesome thread title"
1. Zarf BeebleBrix

If you are ever of any position of authority above janitor, remind me to stay more than 100 miles away from you.

Not to mention that there are mixed loyalties within the National Guard.  Even if the National Guard is structurally supposed to follow the governor first and foremost, the people recruited within the organization won't necessarily believe that, as they were recruited in a world where the federal and state levels weren't at risk of conflict.

An added militia would recruit people with the assumption that this militia adheres to the state, not federal, level first and foremost.  Much easier to ensure loyalty to the state under that recruitment paradigm.

That's just bad business, Key.

Picture a plastics manufacturer.  To continue production, it needs a large supply of oil constantly streaming into its facilities.  If, at any point, oil isn't at the factory, there's no production that day.  How do you arrange the oil purchases?

Buying oil day to day is problematic for a couple reasons, including the loss of constant streams of transportation and the possibility of just not being able to find a reasonable seller.

Buying oil and storing it for the future is an even worse idea.  You would have a giant, unsafe stock of oil in your facility.  Plus you have to pay the cost of storage, which is quite large.  Some companies may be able to pursue this method, but most can't...

Live underground

Die right now or never die?

Correction: They would applaud the marriage as a recognition of the rights of animals to wed humans. 

@xeno and You_Fool

Yes, theoretically, you could discuss the other topics here.  However:
1: As was noted, "poor people poor" already had over 100 posts, indicating it was deep in a discussion.  Two implications:
A: That discussion would have to be started from scratch in order to reclaim where the discussion formerly was...
B: It would interfere in the other discussion...
2: Refer to 2C from above.

In short, note the topic: explaining inequality.  To really analyze the issue would require more than a post.  It would need a Master's thesis.  Limiting such a broad topic to one thread is, in essence, the same thing as having multiple topics in one thread, degrading the depth in which we can analyze each individual issue.

Xeno:

1: Who created the institutions you speak of?  What force made them come into being?
2: How come whenever one institution dies and a new one is created, the same system of specialization of labor continues to exist?
3: Name a society that did not have the institutions of which you speak, yet was able to prove itself more efficient than an equivalent society with said organizing institutions.
4: In fact, give me your #1 best example of the greatest non-institutionalized society in history...

You assume the only thing to worry about with methane is environmental issues.

Methane emissions from farms greatly reduce surrounding land values, because... well, you wouldn't want to live in a home that perpetually smelt like shit.  In many cases in the Midwest, especially where farms use the current disposal method of putting all waste in large pools, the odor can actually last for one or two miles beyond the source point... that's pretty damn bad!

In addition, educational studies have indicated that people living near regions with high methane emissions, such as cattle farms, tend to score much lower on standardized testing scores... in large part because the environment is just damn distracting...

The #1 issue isn't just the number of cattle in the world.  The primary issue is that there are so many cattle in such a small region.  Within their environment, cattle represent a highly invasive species, regardless of their economic benefits.  While I'm not saying cattle ranching should be eliminated, technology can reduce its impact on environmental and economic interests.

In addition, you haven't answered arguments 1 and 2 from the last post.