In my few encounters with anarchistic theory, I've noticed that anarchists tend to hold to one of two possible definitions for anarchy:

1. Society without government.
2. Government without leaders.

Those who adhere to the second definition are far less common, but they do exist. What is your definition, Rozar?

I don't care whether peaceful or violent. Illegal is illegal.

One constitutes and invasion. If they are illegal, it is an invasion.

Numbers are irrelevant. What matters is whether they come in peace or in violence.

What's the difference between an elected official and an employee in a government department? Simply whether they are elected or appointed?

Also, is the person who writes the rule really the only thing that matters?

How many constitutes an invasion? Do they come in one by one or by the thousands?

Laws are approved by elected officials. Regulations are written by employees in government departments.

From Merriam-Webster
Anarchy:

a : absence of government

b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

No government means no laws, and no courts and no police. That would be an environment where the "baddest ass on the block" would rule. Else, you believe your fellow humans are all pacifists.

You were already specific enough. That was clear and concise.

I've never seen a piece of paper take an action (as that is all that a corporation is). Only individuals can take action.

Corporate shield. People acting in the interests of their corporation are not liable personally for their actions, rather the corporation for which they are acting is responsible.
This is different in Europe (at least France) where the plant manager is personally liable for defects in products, and for actions taken by individuals working for the company if directed by leadership to perform actions (not for independent actions of each individual, just for what they are told to do).
Thus, the plant manager who dumped toxic chemicals into a stream without a corporate shield would be individually liable for that action, whereas under a corporate shield, only the company is responsible.

I disagree. The actions that a company or corporation takes should be considered separate from the actions of individuals.

What if the property in question is owned by no one?

What is a statist government, and how does it differ from a Constitutional government? Or does it differ at all? Could all governments be considered statist, even small ones?

How is it possible for elected officials to legislate what punishment should be imposed on people who violate the law if there is zero regulation on any individual or business? Aren't "law" and "regulation" simply two different words for the same thing – that is, a rule established by the government specifying a particular action which may not be preformed?

But if you believe in anarchy, you are de facto counting on the actions of your fellow man to be non-aggressive. I say that history shows this to be foolhardy.

The purpose of a standing military is to guard against the potential invasion of foreign nations.

I meant to come off as asking whether rlewellen can think for themselves. You might cite what AR has to say, but that is not the source of "absolute truth."

So, you are saying that only what AR had to say about Objectivism is valid and is the last word? I say think for yourself.