a cellphone company, or i shop in a supermarket, this is a real contract... there is no mutual consent' . Why is one any more or less coercive than the other? You may have little choice which nation you live in, you may also have little choice whether or not you pay interest, or rent, or work for wages. You cant have it both ways and you know it. Either you are against coercive relationships, , and they are all 'immoral' in which case I welcome you (on behalf of others) to the anarchist community, or you do not. It is not logical, i.e, it does not fit with a process of reason, to say in principe you do not accept the zero or little choice one has when it comes to the rule of govt, but that you are willing to accept a similarily coercive relationship with say, a bank. Either such relationships are immoral or not. Well Krisztian, which is it? Apr 24 2012: yeah, joanne, i'm pretty sure by now that you have trouble identifying aggression. suppose X has a flat, and rents it out to Y at an agreed upon price of 200 per week. at the end of the first week, Y does not pay. what happened? the rental contract is at this point becomes broken, violated. since Y did not comply with it, he illegally used the flat for a week. that is a damage made to the property, since the legal user could