I am an Anarcho-capitalist, AMA.

> maybe you're using words in a way I'm not expecting. Probably that one. I'm using 'government' in an *extremely* loose sense of the word, crudely shoving most human interactions into the framework of the Social Contract. > We might form some kind of agreements about certain things - like we go eat at a chicken place instead of a pasta place - but that's all done through mutual agreement, not through any kind of force. And that really is a key component, I think, force. Sorta. If someone wanted pasta and had to 'settle' for chicken, it can be said that they were 'forced'. Even if that 'force' is nothing more than the social pressure to not make too much fuss. All else being equal, did the group choose chicken? Why couldn't the chicken-voter be the one to capitulate? Somebody 'lead' the group, either through stubbornness or by pioneering a compromise. > Ultimately, a government does two things (I mean it does more than two things, but these are the relevant points) - it lays down a bunch of orders for its citizens, and then it enforces them with the threat of force. So requiring to me get a driver's license before I can drive on public roads is an order. And then if a cop pulls me over and sees I don't have a license, he says "You're required to have a driver's license to drive on these roads, I have to take you to jail". If I refuse, then he'll start to use physical force on me, and if I also respond with physical force, he might draw his gun and kill me for it. And that's true for basically every law - it's an order, one backed with the threat of physical violence or even death if resisted enough or in particular ways. And that makes sense because it's a dominance hierarchy, with the state at the top, and it's citizens underneath it, forced to obey by the rules. Absolutely. > So a normal interaction between people usually doesn't have that feature, the feature of force or the dominance hierarchy. My wife worked from home today, for instance, so we talked and hung out a bit before I came to work today. And there's no threat of force from either of us to the other; you can't really say either one of us was potentially threatened if one of us acted out of line. Also there's no dominance structure; we each regard the other as equals, and neither one of us is subservient to the other. I feel like the only reason that equilibrium exists because you both have very similar ideas of your proper place in society relative to your spouse: next to her. And you both probably work very hard to keep it that way. > Well, you might think "but that's a democratic structure, where everyone has a say", but even democracies have people in charge. Actually I think a successful marriage looks more like a socialist utopia of two (most of the time) > I would also like to comment on the "hypothetical concept" part, but I think I need to get my thoughts together more for that. Would you think that totalitarianism and central planning (I would think the ideological opposites of anarchy and free markets) are also just hypothetical concepts, or not? Anarchy is so unstable as to be practically non-existent. You know how much work is involved maintaining the equilibrium of marriage; imagine trying to do that with people you aren't so fond of. A stable Anarchy would require the whole society to possess levels of self-sacrifice you don't usually see outside of religion. As for totalitarianism... depends on how far you want to push that definition. I think a 'perfectly' totalitarian state would be one that doesn't involve any humans whatsoever, or else some disturbing levels of mind manipulation. > And it's worth noting this is a big reason why I'm Libertarian and not Anarcho-Capitalist. In a Libertarian society, the government would still exist and would still have the responsibility of protecting citizens from assault by their fellow citizens. So in a Libertarian world where this was happening, Bob's group appeals to the state and says "Hey, Alice's group is getting rowdy and is threatening to use force on us, we need some help." And so police swoop in, arrest the trouble-makers in Alice's group, and Bob's group is spared a really rough and terrible choice. I don't see these kinds of protections in An-Cap thinking, which is partly why I don't agree with the abolition of government as a whole. Agreed; as far as I can tell An-Cap society would end up looking like the Mexican cartels.