Thanks for recognizing yourself that your answer (which mentioned Lairds and town councils) was offtopic. Yes, anti-libertarian propoganda typically distorts libertarian concepts, so that, no wonder, you appear confused. So, in a libertarian society ownership is a central institution. Starting with self-ownership. And, of course, contains ownership of everything produced, as well as of land which is used. Moreover, libertaria is no utopia like communism, so there will be criminals who violate ownership rights. And libertarian citizens have the right to defend themself. By the way, what you have chosen to name "government" is certainly not forbidden too. A libertarian community can, and will, of course, have leaders. What these leaders do not have are more rights than the other people - and even this only except the rights they have been given volitionally. (And "volitionally" does not mean a majority decision). They can even have police forces and armies. With policement and soldiers paid for, or volunteers, but no with conscribed slaves. And the difference is, again, that these soldiers and policemen do not have more rights than any citizen. They have weapons - but everybody else has the right to own weapons too. Because of this I have taked about secession, even for a single person. It does not exist now, the closest thing which exists now is emigration. There is, of course, a difference, and an important one - a secession means that what is owned by the group has to be divided into fair parts. Emigration means you get nothing. Tell this to your mirror. Here is how Wiki defines government: "A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled. In the Commonwealth of Nations, the word government is also used more narrowly to refer to the collective group of people that exercises executive authority in a state. This usage is analogous to what is called an "administration" in American English. Furthermore, especially in American English, the concepts of the state and the government may be used synonymously to refer to the person or group of people exercising authority over a politically organized territory." So, I count here three definitions, all of them referring to state. Only one adds an "or community" which you could use as an excuse to justify your wide interpretation. If not, fine. Then your reference to them was irrelevant. Stop creating strawmen. I have no need at all to deny political complexity of tribal organization. By the way, when I have mentioned the complexity of various societies in the past, I have received in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/noam-chomsky.145757/#post-3310764 a And now you start praise to the skies some American Indian tribes. Whats wrong with the Afghan tribes? That they win against the American army? Just curious. Yes, freedom is fine, even if it can be abused. In fact, every freedom can be "abused", applied to do harmful things. First of all, with the wrong free decision people harm themself. They have to live with this, this is named responsibility. They can also harm other people. But as long as this is not an aggression, the other people have to live with it too. If I reject your proposal for sex, you have to live with this, if I bid at an auction, I harm other bidders, they have to live with this. This is what freedom of contract is. And, no, libertarians do not promote rights only to some parts, they always promote all the rights to all people. (With some exceptions, of course, which you cannot avoid in modern America without being named a ....) And the next strawman. Of course, there will be criminals in the libertarian society too. They are even more powerful than today - because they have equal rights, they are not part of the sheeple as today, where the police can do a lot of things nobody else is permitted to do. So, the organization of defense against robberers and other criminals is a difficult problem, in fact one of the most difficult ones.