I sometimes get lost in the sea of comments and don't manage to reply to every single one.
What I mean by government is how it is used in most dictionaries, and by most human beings. (see the definition in the original post). Let's try the Lockean definition for clarification:
"Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent. The only way whereby any one devests himself of his Natural Liberty, and puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other Men to joyn and unite into a Community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of their Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of it. This any number of Men may do, because it injures not the Freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the Liberty of the State of Nature. When any number of Men have so consented to make one Community or Government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one Body Politick, wherein the Majority have a Right to act and conclude the rest."
To address your further points.
"But "contracts" seem far off from the idea of what most of us consider a "government." Usually for it to be considered "government," it has to be a controlling class of people, rulers; elected or otherwise."
It is certainly far off from the modern conception of government, as a result of the bad philosophy of the individuals in our society. If you remove today's governments without changing the philosophy of the population, more coercive organizations will emerge overnight.
"I would not use force to stop some peaceful organization that does not harm or impose upon the rights of individuals outside that organization.
Yes. That means it is ok with you if people form governments, and you are not an anarchist.
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: