Those two are basically the same thing, and they depend utterly upon my willingness to chip into a communal defensive force. It doesn't change the foundation of what I am saying, that the authority to tax me and fund my defense comes from the majority.
People who endeavour to insist that authority is legitimate are merely implicitly supporting the authority. I'm not saying they're wrong, except if they deny that they're helping provide the authority.
Yes, in short, but it is not that simple.
Take a libertarian/anarcho-capitalistic system and make the following assumption - the majority of people do not own enough means in order for them to life without working and they don't own their own housing, i.e. rented or mortgage.
So they:
1. Cancel/terminate all contracts.
2. Go on a peaceful sit-down/hunger strike.
3. Give the rest of the relevant people a choice; they can accept the deal offered, throw the strikers in jail for trespassing, kill the strikers or watch the strikers die.
So what do they want?
-A trading union/company for the relevant area of the strike, where all of the members agree only to trade with other members.
-That you can be excluded from union/company and/or are punished for contract violation with tort and/or prison if you violate the contract.
-That you can leave the area if you want, but that it doesn't mean that you can freely enter another area.
-That bartering without money is not allowed unless specifically allowed under the contract.
-That when you receive money for a trade made under the contract a part of the money you receive are not yours; they are the fee(a form of sales tax) I pay to the union/company, which you are a member/co-owner. You then transfer the fee to the union/company. (This can vary as per property tax, income tax, sales tax and so on).
-That you get one vote(representation) as a member/co-owner as a part of how the members/co-owners decide to used the money.
Now it is legal/right/good or what not? It depends as it is subjective.
