Yes, and why can't a government be a free association?

because it has rules and penalizes

But if everyone agrees to it, then they're freely-associating with it.

you cant say , i break the rules, step out to avoid the penalty

so it isnt free

Why can't I say that?

because of the government

The government could stop me? Using what?

force

What force?

police

And I can move.

if you have laws you have police

otherwise its silly to have laws

you cant move when you are detained

But I agreed to these rules, did I not?

Did you

and are you saying that a anarcist doesnt changes his or hers mind when it pleases teh anarachist

you think the anarcist will turn in to a confirmist ?

They can change their minds and associate with different people altogether.

That's what they want to say.

No because the government you argreed with is now prosecuting you because you broke the agreed upon rules

Is the coin dropping yet why you cant have governments when you are anarcist

Some anarchists would instead say 'well, no, they should just be driven out of that group instead, and they can try again with another one'.

So that would be dictatorship

No, because one would be able to associate with other people.

Wtf

I'm using what I think their arguments are.

if you get driven out by a anarchist government, you will jsut associate with others ?

Yes!

They'd say that finding alternatives should be easy.

But now you just assumed again

you assumed that the agreement was banishment

instead of death

you simply created a strawmen

Some anarchists would say that there would not need to be any death involved.

Simply the cutting of social ties.

Some anarchist would say that it is okay to have a government that banishes ppl

?

really??

Yes, but the argument is that they can still get what they want through another collective...