Consensual government is an oxymoron.
It doesn't matter which system is in power, I cannot not consent to paying taxes. If I don't pay taxes willingly, they will be taken by force, or I will be arrested - and if I resist, shot.
Unless you're referring to consensual in relation to the word consensus; which is a blatant abuse of language, no different than social, and socialist.
Your definition implies that government is a fundamental core and part of reality, which is blatantly untrue. A government only exists to the extent that we let it exist: either because we live in fear of it, or because we perceive that we are benefiting from it (welfare).
Again, the only that really matters is distribution of wealth. A government can't do anything without wealth, and people will not willingly give away their wealth to them if they don't have to (read with a gun pointed at their heads). The only thing that matters is to what extent they take things from you.
The more a government takes it from its population, prisoners or slaves, the more leftist is. At the extreme end, the government owns everything. The less it takes from the population, the more right wing it must be. Because the less resources it has, the less courts it can run, and the less army/police it can finance to enforce its laws.
Consensual governance is an oxymoron because one cannot not consent to having their shit stolen and taken away.
You're limiting the definition of the word governance to only what we've had the chance to observe in our short lives, which has been all non-consensual.
Do you prefer the term hierarchy? A consensual hierarchy would be an organization where everyone follows the leadership willingly out of genuine trust, and only donates to the leadership willingly, and no NAP violations are imposed upon anyone. This is antistate, but cannot rightly be called anarchy.
Again, you are always assuming that there is some kind of hierarchy. There doesn't need to be. If you only trade with your neighbours, there is no hierarchy. If you have separate countries at peace, there is no hierarchy. Even today, countries have no hierarchy. There is no order that specifies one country is better or greater than the other, and must follow its rules or pay tribute (taxes).
... where everyone follows the leadership willingly out of genuine trust, and only donates to the leadership willingly, and no NAP violations are imposed upon anyone.
This is fantasy. No man will willingly be anyone else's slave. Antistatism is naught but a jewish trick, and you should a feel as a fool for believing in antistatism. And why would a group that aims to dismantle the state, advocate for submission to some other power?
Antistatism. Now that that rings a bell. ANTI-. As I recall, they turned out to just be authoritarian communists.
Pray tell, where did YOU learn about anti-statism?
assuming that there is some kind of hierarchy. There doesn't need to be.
I never said there needs to be hierarchy, I only implied that there can be.
No man will willingly be anyone else's slave.
Of course, it's not slavery, by definition, if a man serves willingly. If you willingly work for an organized company, you're willingly part of a hierarchy. If you join a club that collects dues from its members, you pay the dues voluntarily, because you joined and remain in the club voluntarily.
where did YOU learn about anti-statism?
I determined by myself that the removal of the State is the solution to all of society's problems. I discovered the word 'antistatism' through it's etymology. I checked, and the word was already present in dictionaries, but I had never seen it used anywhere before I came up with it. I am the only person I know of who advocates for antistatism by using the word 'antistatism'. I later discovered that Hoppe advocates for an ideology that is more or less the same as my own.
If you would like to learn more about antistatism, you can check out the sub I made to promote it:
(post is archived)