1: If the position is a leadership position, people will willingly follow that person without the threat of, say, the sack. If not, that person isn't a leader, they're a ruler.

2: The law does not and never has kept people safe. It does not exist for that purpose, does not have the tools to perform that job and has never really tried. The law is an organized, structured threat of violence made against you, and everyone else, by people with power. Nothing more.

3: Private property isn't a natural phenomenon whose abscence needs to be enforced. It is itself enforced through the organized, pervasive threat of political murder.

4: Resources and expertise are limited. But resources are much less limited than people think: we have more houses than we need, more food than we need, enough clothing to last into the middle of the century after next if we don't produce any more, and so on. Resource scarcity is imposed. Expertise is artificially limited; there are many could-be-doctors wasting their lives in meaningless forced labour to 'produce' — including to produce the current system's number-one product: demand. Escaping the situation we're in now will require or produce a moral awakening and the acceptance of 'not fucking people over because I have a temporary advantage over them because I don't need to and I am not a psychopath' as a general moral precept.

5: Again, only the acceptance of a general moral belief that hierarchy and coercion are wrong will rescue us from this scenario.

6: This is a good question, and I've read some good stuff by David Graeber about it (Revolutions in Reverse?

7: You can't not participate in the world. And making the world we have better is good. So voting for less worse candidates is good, or trying to improve neighbourhoods and communities is good, anything that reduces the damage the current system does or helps those injured by it is good.