Comment: Assumptions

Even this booklet by Rothbard is assuming that government needs to perform the functions of taxation and military, so he is certainly not wrong in the idea that a "state" requires those functions and thus, must steal in order to exist. However, I'm specifically asking if the definition of government can be so limited that these functions Rothbard is taking for granted as a necessary part of the state, can be erradicated. Is volunatary government even government? If 1 million citizens simply agreed to a bill or rights, and promised to follow those ideals, isn't that still government, even if they don't elect a president, or legislators, or demand taxation. Anarchy exists in absence of any agreed upon code of conduct or agreed upon definition of individual rights, but Rothbard continues to say that the natural state of man involves individual property rights. What is it called, if not government, to say that the members of society agree that individuals have property rights. I can see how one woudn't want to call that agreement "government", but it most certainly can't be called anarchy.