Improvision

Somalia as a country has not been stable, since the people were devastated by the wars with and from other countries. Farmland and most production had been destroyed/ruined. Individual merchants and civilians would been armed themselves. In any stable country/community a loyal military is formed and also funded mostly by and of its own self sufficient people.

A mercenary has to be loyal to their source of money/support in order to be able to function. No money, no guns. You might as well describe the US or any country's military/police as a mercenary group.

In anarchy, leadership is paid for and supported by the followers. The people who are doing any trade and commerce are the ones that are making the money to fund any kind of armed force, so it would naturally be in the best interest of anyone with any group fighting ability to protect the people who are supporting their economy. Any fighting would be between fighters themselves. If one fighting group is victorious against another fighting group, then whoever on the winning side of the fighters is left standing from the conflict is going to have to fight other individual armed people if it wants to conquer those people and those people would of been the ones who are producing any kind of wealth. Another protective "militia" can be paid for if one militia falls. Surrounding individual groups of people who also have their own militias can aid their partners or simply not do any business with groups that are known to be aggressive and the aggressors are left to their own funding if they have any at all. Being a warlord in an anarchy would not be profitable and therefore not sustainable.

You have free will, when YOUR mind is allowed to make its own decision. If your mind is forced to make the choice that the mind of another person dictates with the threat or use of force, then you as an individual person do not have free will. Whether you want to call it chemical reactions or whatever, YOU have your own thoughts about things and you would act based on those thoughts if allowed.

Iceland survived with anarchy for over 290 years without any large scale civil war. Ireland lasted for 1000 years. They collapsed when they had become less anarchic and/or when they were invaded by armies of foreign non-anarchic states. In an anarchy it doesn't matter who has the most arms, because you cannot simply order one group of people beyond their free will to go fight another group. Anyone who had leadership of any group was at the mercy of whether or not the followers agreed with who they agreed upon as the leader. A leader comes about as other people willingly follow, because they feel that the leader is going to lead with their best interest. If a leader wants to fight another group of people and the followers do not feel the need to attack, they can simply ignore the leader and the leader would be left to fight another group on their own or possibly with small support against what they individually consider an "enemy" of unknown size and strength. People will go with ruling that is profitable, and war is not profitable.

Anarchic Iceland http://www.eurekatube.net/index.php/articles/48-anarchic-iceland Anarchic Ireland http://www.eurekatube.net/index.php/articles/49-anarchic-ireland There are some more recent smaller anarchic communities that have existed within a government dictated borders. It is usually in far off rural areas that a government may not have bothered to enforce with any local stationed regulators. Found a video on anarchy vs statism (government) Part 2 Part 3

So DNA is just not exactly replicated, because telomeres are not regenerated which results in telomeres being basically cut in half. How are telomeres obtained and why aren't they replaced/repaired? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Couldn't the division of cells be regulated, so that it can be done indefinitely without detrimental effects?

Why do telemeres get shorter?

All the cells in your body are replaced when they die. When your body is replacing cells, why would cells in our "youthful" bodies be replaced over time by NEW cells that make up our "aged/old" bodies, which are not as good as the cells that were there before? Why do living things just come to a grinding halt in "death"?

Well when the stress is gone those cells separate again right?

If you scrape your knee when you fall down, the blood cells and skin cells that are separated from the rest of the body and left behind on the ground will die while left in the open environment. Current evolutionary theory would suggests the tissue and organs in a multi cellular organism evolved by cells in the past joining together to from those cell structures that you see in present day animals and plants. But since individual cells in such organisms can not survive on their own, how did they exist separately in the past to merge together in the first place?

How do they know that space is "expanding"? What is the current scientific definition of "space"?

Galaxies move 2x faster than the speed of light? How does the galaxy move ~26 billion light years in 13 billion years?

are really used as a base to estimate the age of the universe? The oldest stars we see are "some of the first"? Thats like looking at the oldest living human who is say 115 years old and using them to estimate that the human race started 115 years ago.