Interesting, thanks again for the response. It seems that you are what one might call a 'minarchist', someone who believes in small, non-interventional government.

I understand your point about the bottom line of force when defending rights. What if I told you that having no rulers doesn't mean having no rules?

No, of course I don't believe that crimes shouldn't go unpunished. A principle of anarchy is called the Non-Aggression Principle, which works in conjunction with the Self-Defence Principle. These state, simply put, that one should not initiate violence against another person. However, if one has violence committed against them, they have the right to defend themselves.

The crux of this argument - that government is required to provide force - is dispelled with the statement that everything the government provides can be done privately. Police forces would be accountable directly to their communities or they would be replaced, this is incentive to be a much better force than the unaccountable system of policing we have now.

Security can (and is currently, by private security forces) be provided without government. I would ask you; can you name one service the government provides that cannot be achieved on a voluntary basis privately, rather than using coercion?