I would like to clarify my earlier forced servitude statement. I will use the possible conversation that may take place in such a situation to show what could be done with someone who is refusing to have anything to do with defense and refuses to leave.

So, the community of people following the voluntary principles of their chosen lifestyle knows that there is a gang of some sort on a rampage and hitting their neighbors. They have solid information from some survivors and refugees coming to them and giving eyewitness accounts of this threat. Furthermore, they had sent out a "recon" team to confirm and they come back with a detailed report. They know the numbers, the activity, the last place spotted and moving towards the village, and they know the type of weaponry. It becomes clear that the odds are in the village favor if all members who are able take defensive measures and fight.

Our objector, known as George, has refused to participate claiming it is against the "non-aggression" principle or something. One member fighting, called Joe, contends with him and says "We need every gun we can get."

"I do not believe in them. I won't fight and you can't make Me." is the response from George.

"No, I can't, but you do not have to stay, either."

"But I am part of the village!" George protests, then, "And if I leave I might be killed! I have a 'right' to my life. You must protect me! I refuse to leave."

"All of what you said is true, except for one; I do not have to protect you. No one can guarantee your protection and if you are not willing to defend your life then, who can say you did not deserve what you get. Also, how do you think you will achieve forcing ME and anyone else here, to protect your life? We are not interested in your life. Each of us are acting in the interest of our own self-preservation and agreeing to cooperate with each other to achieve that goal. That means we have to watch each other’s back because if one guy is killed that makes another vulnerable.

Joe pauses, and then says, "If we should fail in repelling attack and our line is over run, what are you going to do then? Die?! Because you refuse to fight?! You will have to do one of two things, either fight or run. And by that point you could find yourself trying to fend off 20 aggressors’ intent on taking your life. At least if you step up now you have a better chance at surviving than if you continue to refuse."

"Well," George says, "that is just your opinion and I could just give myself up. You don’t know what might happen. They might take care of me and it could be someone who will protect me.”

“That may be, but they might have use for you and once you are no longer useful, then, they will get rid of you. Why not, if that is the risk you are willing to take, leave here now and go ask them to make you their servant, saving you the trouble later? I mean what is the difference, huh?

“Well, you do what you want, but I am done arguing. If we manage to fend them off, then, we can settle this later. We have things to tend to and little time to do it. I have three people who want to fight, but have never fired a gun and I agreed to teach them.” With that Joe turns to walk away, but stops and faces him when George says, “WAIT! I see your point, but I know nothing about how to shoot. I am afraid that I would be of no use fighting, unless, you can show me too?”

“I would be willing to do that, but if you would rather we have other things that can be done to strengthen and support those of us doing the fighting. So, you will be able to help if you have changed your mind. We would love to have you and as I said we need everybody that we can get because the odds are barely even and that is just in numbers not weapons. Our firepower is capable but, it has its limits. Anyway, the first shooting lesson is in five minutes by the debris pit. I will see you there.”

I thought I might add that in there too show what it might look like in reality. The discussion is concerning the “free-rider” problem and I am not giving an excuse to such a person. I guess, besides an exercise in creative story writing, I thought this would be a proper way of how to go about it.

he cannot be forced to provide "common defense" that is forced servitude i.e. slavery

By not contributing to the common defense the man can live a secure existence because of the labor of those who man the wall. Who is enslaving whom?

those who step up and man the walls because there is beyond a reasonable doubt an imminent threat from aggressors, can persuade and convince him to provide them with some food instead so they can continue to watch

The free rider, who is not on the wall, doesn’t see what they see from the wall. He is not convinced that there is a threat. This is a bigger problem in a bigger society. As evidence, people in a commune within a nation’s borders will say that there is no threat, that they are being coerced, and that they will handle it all themselves. It’s a comfortable position to take from inside the walls.

Mexico could station troops along the border and say "we are 'protecting you' so you must pay us"

Borders are shared, but threats only go one way. Protecting a border is always protection from the outside. When border troops keep people in, it is a prison society.

Follow the logic to the end and no one can own any property.

What I am gathering from your argument looks something like this:

Two people own land next to each going north to south: like person A who has land that they own and live on and their neighbor, person B owns their property that they live on next to A to the south. Then, person B can claim that if his property is between person A’s southern border and the people of Zland, then, person A is being protected from possible invasion from the zlanders and should have to make “payment” to person B to avoid being a “free-rider” off of person B. Person B’s property is between person A’s property and Zland, therefore, A must make payment or he is guilty of free-riding off of person B.

Your example would only be the case in a state of nature, not a nation with border, but in Anarchy where property rights actually ultimately don’t exist.

Maybe so, but remember they were part of states who had seceded and therefore saw the Federal soldiers as foreign invaders.

The issues behind the war were economic sanctions on the South, the South’s desire to secede, and slavery. The economic sanctions were because of the southern slavery policy, the presumed right to secede was based on a states’ presumed right to maintain slavery by law. Slavery itself was the crux of every matter. They said they were fighting for state’s rights. The right to take away rights (of black people) is not a right. The various states of the south were not respecters of individual rights, but rather the state’s rights.

But what in your book qualifies, then? What is your understanding of the "anarchic society"?

An anarchic society would have to be in a state of nature. That is to say they wouldn’t qualify as anarchic if they exist within an organized nation of laws. Any societal benefits would need to come from within their own anarchic society. This isn’t the case when they exist within national borders.

They didn't? It was not slavery that the fight was over.

Convenient opinions rarely match reality.

Well, then, I do not see how anyone can possibly own any property. In fact, if what you are saying is true, you cannot possibly have the right of self-defense because you are already provided protection and your "protectors" get to call the shots.

Protected borders (the military), and protected streets (police), have nothing to do with one’s right to use force in self-defense. No one can cover self-defense except for one’s self.

The police and the courts call the shots when it comes to retribution, or the use of force in response. This is appropriate.

I believe you have some serious contradictions in your position.

Show me where.