Comment: 1. That's assuming the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: 1. Rothbard is saying that as (see in situ)

1. That's assuming the

1. That's assuming the communities respect one another's jurisdictions, which, unless they're all members of some larger organization, I see no reason for them to do.

2. What I'm advocating is nothing like those examples. I'm talking about a government: officials, elections, a constitution, nightwatchmen functions, etc. My vision is probably much like yours in substance. It's anarchistic only in the sense that this government is not a state. A state is an aggressive monopoly DRO. This government is a non-aggressive monopoly DRO (and I've already explained how I think a monopoly DRO can maintain it's monopoly without using aggression).

Originally I called myself an ancap who rejects the possibility of polycentric law. I could just as rightly call myself a minarchist who believes in the possibility of non-aggressive government.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."