Nick your reply is hollow – “Guvmint is, wrong, period. Ta da!” A big question becomes when does a organisation qualifies to be a ‘government’. Some seem to imply that it refers to whenever someone ‘initiates force and fraud’.

Inquisitor, I don’t get what you mean. To be a landowner should mean being a sovereign owner hence be the one to say what goes on his or her land. You seem to have a problem seeing guvmint as an institution that tells sovereign individuals what to do – I prefer that analogy to be more towards the U.N. trying to override nation-states. Then there’s the question of what if private landowners choose to accept external authority such as Catholic landowners choosing to abide by rulings from the Vatican.

On the other hand, the notion of landownership staying small is a tad irrelevent. Does it matter how much land a tyrant claims ownership over? How many not many dictatorships and tyrannies actually amounted to small nations and populations, especially when you think of the term ‘city-state’?

If you want to play further wordgames some Libertarians like use word like ‘governance rather than government’. Why always presume laws, rules and punishments come from an external gang of thugs who swagger down a village of individual and declare themselves ‘the rulers’? I believe Homeownershps’ Associations and Gated Communities show how an governmental scenario can emerge privately rather than through conquest. Or, in other words, my view of government vs. citizens equals landowners vs. landtenant in the private market.