So, does defending your land give you the ability to use deadly force?

I too have answered with reason. I doubt you'll have the ability to provide a rational reasoned response to refute. I expect more ad hominem in return.

Let's see. You put a post up on a Friday before the first major holiday of the summer, and then want to proclaim self-congratulation that nobody bothered to answer - proclaiming this a victory for the argument. Sheesh. How juvenile.

Your fundamental premise (and that of Mr. Childs) is that a government inherently must be initiated as an entity that threatens to use force as a condition of it's existence. That is a red herring. A government is merely any entity that all parties agree has authority to decide (thus, govern). It is the agreement on the authority that makes it a government, not the use or threat of the use of force. The ability of the use of force provides the government the substance to effect it's authority, but it derives the authority from the consent - at least for those bodies that embody freedoms, like the US and most of the western world. For those that embody tyranny, their power does in fact derive from force first.
Debate ended.

Yes, education is highly inefficient, so let's just establish a totalitarian regime and dictate to the people. Of course, we'll be benevolent dictators, so nothing to worry about.

How do you think you're going to be left out of it?

Lets say you purchase 1000 acres of land out in Wyoming. You have all the resources on that property that you need to survive without interacting with the rest of society, so you seemingly have no need for "government." Everything goes along just fine for some time - you have no income so no taxes, you don't require fire or police services, you are seemingly fully self sufficient and devoid of government (yes, I'm conveniently leaving out the issue of property taxes, let's just assume no such thing exists). A new neighbor moves in next door and likes your property that is adjacent to his. So much so, that he begins to use it for his own needs. You now have a dispute about who gets to use those resources.

You can -
1) Utilize retaliatory force to evict the invading neighbor, at which time the neighbor may escalate and use even greater force to retain his violation of your property, such escalation could continue to the point of loss of life, the ultimate loss of liberty.

2) You could discuss the violation with the neighbor and reason with him to stop the violation, at which point the neighbor may or may not agree or even care about your property rights and revert to scenario 1.

3) You may employ some outside agency to act on your behalf, which will only result in either scenario 1 or 2.

4) You can bring the violation to an external entity to mediate, but if that external agent doesn't have the ability to enforce the decision you end up with scenario 1 or 2.

5) You can bring the violation to an external entity to mediate that does have the inherent power - which is a government.

Contracts only obligate those who are parties to the contract. Thus, if you opt out, you are not obligated. Unless you propose to use force to contractually obligate everyone (in which case, you've just created the government that you so despise).

And just to be clear - Libertarians are those of the Libertarian party. Small "l" libertarianism is a belief in liberty.

Who imparts the consequences?

Why do you sully Lew Rockwell? He merely provided the forum for Roy Childs.

Correct! These free-market anarchists get wrapped around who is vested with the use of force and confuse that with government. As you correctly point out, the creation of common rules and the ability to enforce those are de facto government. It matters not whether the actual mechanism is a publicly financed body or privately financed bodies.

You are wrong. There are private mediation services to which various parties subscribe. Thus, this is already taking place, and undercuts your statement.

Not sure where you get that issue from - it's certainly not the main thrust in the article referenced.

I'm with you!