Thank you for the push back! First, I’d like to clarify, the definition of anarchy is no rulers (just as others mentioned earlier). It is based upon the understanding of self-ownership. As for the stewardship/ guardian role: If a self-owning human is currently unable to articulate their will, in an informed manner, no one has the right to make life-altering changes to that person (essentially assuming that persons will.) At best, someone may work only toward the natural preservation of another until they do have the ability to fully express their will. Parents gain ownership of the steward/guardian role by homesteading it. They are the first to care for the child …especially the mother. Governments cannot be stewards for two reasons from this basis. First, no one can claim to be “stewards” of already mature humans who are indeed capable of fully expressing their will. Second, just as one cannot gain ownership of an object by mere decree or calling “dibs,” no person nor group called government, can declare itself rightful stewards. Therefore, the family guardians role should not infringe on anyone’s right of self-ownership; there are no rulers. Government cannot be a steward by definition and has no right to be a ruler over another, just as no one does.