Clearly you are wrong clearly you dont know what you are talking about when you use termonology, which you have don a lot in your pointless onnselniscal rants from before

>state is a possibility

What?

Where did it say that?

But regardless of all of this, you're trying to act all high and mighty, using your supposed knowledge of terminological conventions, when in fact you're ignoring the fact we don't have to hide behind the terminologies here and establish what we mean by 'state', 'government' and so on. I can tell you what I think they mean.

yeah it didnt say that

Oops.

Coked.

colunatairy instituses are a posibility

Anyway, that's your game over. Now *my* game.

No it isnt how is that

i wrote states instead of coluntairy institutes 😄

and you take that as a win 😄 😄

so sad

You dont have gamne

It doesn't say that states are a possibility in anarchism.

No it doesnt, i wrote state instead of voluntairy institutes

Meaning you meant to write something else?

A government isnt voluntairy

If people agree to be governed, it is.

Yeah like i said, i wrote state instead of voluntairy institues

No because government has rules

that is anti anarcist

Why would it be? If everyone agrees to them, then there's no punishments necessary to keep them in check.

although several authors have defined them more specifically as distinct institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations

>free associations

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