Anarchists use really poor language. They say they don't want a government, but in reality the private defense agencies essentially act as governments. I guess we would need to define the word government to really argue about this point, would anybody like to give it a shot? I know that Anarchists don't like taxation, and that governments usually tax, but I don't think taxation is the characteristic that defines government, although in the past I argued it was a defining characteristic of government I was convinced otherwise. I guess a definition of government could be those with a monopoly on the use of force, but in reality even in the USA the government doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force. Look at that Zimmerman guy, he shot and killed somebody and the government didn't care about it. In the USA at least, in many states, the government doesn't have a monopoly on force, although they come close to it. We could say that the government has a monopoly on determining when someone else can use force, but this isn't really the case in the USA either because they have juries who decide if the use of force is a crime or not. However, the government does have a monopoly on charging somebody with a crime, and they have close to a monopoly on deciding if some action is a crime or not, with limited input from the people in some cases. I think the private defense agencies in an Anarchist world come really close to being small governments. They utilize force in the name of their customers, they decide if something should be a crime or not, they assist in the prosecution of people who commit crimes, etc. Essentially at this point I don't think of Anarchists as really being against government, but rather as being in favor of highly decentralized libertarian mini-governments. I, on the other hand, freely admit that I do want a government. I want a single world all powerful government with a dictator, but I don't want the dictator to be a man but rather an ideology. I want an ideocracy. I want men to be ruled by an idea rather than by a man or group of men, and the idea I want men to be ruled by is libertarianism. I want the idea of libertarianism to be the dictator that rules over all men, and I want its' rule to be totalitarian in nature. I do not want a man with an ideology to rule men, I want an ideology with men to rule mankind. I think anybody should be free to act in the name of the ideology, if they truly act in ways that are accepted by the ideology. If you see a person being raped, you can use force to stop the rapist. If you see a person being robbed, you can use force to stop the robber. We can still have private defense agencies, but they must be bound by the ideology as well, ruled by the same dictator. Any agency that goes against the rule of the ideology becomes an enemy of it, a dissident if you will, and therefore they should be crushed. If we can learn anything from religion it is that it is possible for humanity to be ruled over by an idea rather than a man. And ideas have many advantages over men. Ideas do not become corrupted, but men do. Sure, a person can interpret an idea incorrectly, but they do not kill the original idea rather they just begin to go against it. This is the corruption of man, not the corruption of the idea. Ideas do not die, but men do. Sure, ideas can fall out of favor, those holding the ideas can die, but these are flaws of men not flaws of ideas. Just look at the modern religions of today, these are ideas ruling men that came from long ago. You know why many people hate homosexuals? Because some thousands of years ago men made an idea that convinced people that homosexuals were bad, and the idea still rules the minds of many today, despite the men who came up with the idea all being dead today! Talk about lasting power! An idea can outlive hundreds of men and still have influence on the world. So ideologies certainly make the best dictators, they are impossible to kill or corrupt, only those who claim to follow them can die or be corrupted. We need to put the ideology over the people. We don't need a human dictator to tell people what to do, we need to ingrain in the minds of people the idea we want them to live by, and then the people will act in the name of the idea rather than in the name of a man. What would Jesus do? It needs to be, what would a libertarian do? What would somebody who loves freedom do? The religious people really hit the nail on the head when they found this out, because they were able to surpass the inherent flaws of humans by constructing an idea that transcended human limitations. A general cannot quickly send a message to his troops on the other side of the world telling them what to do, but Jesus can tell a person what to do no matter where they are, and if Jesus is the concept that was created by the general, the general can control his troops no matter where they are! I put more faith in the ideology to bring about a better world than I do in the government or the market or the people, the ideology can guide the government and the market and the people, and become one with all of these things. Again, I point to religion as a prime example of this. And I think that there can only be one good ideology that guides these things. There is one precise and exact belief system, political, economical, social, that is good, and all others are bad, and their badness depends on the degree they are away from the one that is good. So we need to have the one good ideology to rule over mankind, and it needs to be totalitarian because anything that falls away from it is bad, and the more it falls away from it the worse it gets. So I think that the Anarchists are confused. I still love Anarcho-capitalism and agorists, but I hate the words they use. I am an Agorist, but I do not define myself with the same words as most of them do. So since I use different words to describe myself, I really feel I should have a word for my own belief system, and I think Totalibertarianism captures it perfectly. And that is why I have abandoned anarchy and embraced Totalibertarianism, the Libertarian Totalitarian Ideocracy.