Comment: Yes yes and yes

(See in situ)


Yes yes and yes

Those who say no are wrong. But it's because they only understand from our current outlook and understanding of government.

Even If you lived in a generally peaceful anarchist society, and a bunch of the citizens decided to hire a sherrif to protect them from those few aggressors, that sherrif is a very simple government. The difference with current government is that they are only transferring a right they already have: protecting life, liberty and property. In an anarchist society, there should be no force to participate in hiring the sherrif, and no obligation of the sherrif to protect those who haven't contractually agreed to be given protection. But again, the sherrif in this scenario is acting an extension of natural rights. But he is the simplist form of proper voluntary government.

If you don't like that example, here's another. Let's say a group of people own a large plot of land and form a community in an anarchist society. They create a charter of laws and regulations that anyone who moves into must abide by. So in order to move in and become a tenant of a property, you must agree to the contractual laws of the community. You do so voluntarily. If you do not agree, you can leave or be expelled according to the contract that you signed. This is what is likely to happen in most anarchist scenarios and is pretty close to what many of the founding fathers wanted. To keep government mostly on a local level and higher government with little to no authority.

If you don't like that scenario, then this is my last one. Mike owns dailypaul.com. It is his property and his rules. If you don't play by them you will get kicked out of the dailypaul community. Here, he is the government and the law and he has his officers/moderators. There is nothing wrong with this because you have no right to access. Access can be given and taken away because it is his property. The key is that participation or non participation in this community is voluntary.