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

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.