Comment: if.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Political means vs. economic means (see in situ)

if.

If the four people ganged up to violate the fifth person's property rights, isn't that still, by the strict definition, a form of government? Thats still an example of the society controlling the actions of it's members. That would be fascism in a sense, but no more or less a form of government than when the four men ganged up to restore property rights rather than restrict them. Government only needs one action, a member or members controlling the actions of another member. A father "governs" the actions of his son by making him go to bed early. The strict definition only requires that action. Having said that, anarchy is simply the absence of such force, which could only happen if every individual acted without controlling the actions of another, or as we like to call it, "free market capitalism". By the strict definition however, anarchy isn't even humanly possible. Nowhere in the animal kingdom has a species ever followed the non aggression principle to the point that no government existed.
I doubt this helps you understand my perspective, but basically, government is the inevitable control of one member by another, or by many, which will happen any time someone either decides to commit injustice, or decides to prevent injustice. The only time society would have no government (nobody governing the actions of another) is when every member of that society respects every other members individual rights. In the animal kingdom, that has simply never happened, to the point that it is reasonable to say it is impossible. If I glossed over the point that I believe anarchy is free market capitalism at it's finest, let me repeat that again. Although anarchy is humanly impossible, free market capitalism is not. It would be preferential to have both existing simultaneously, however the most modest form of government one in which force, or governance is only used as a method to restore individual property, would produce a sufficiently free market. However, just like anarchy, which requires all members to agree not to govern each other, this minamalist government is equally unlikely, thus a free market is equally unlikely.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).