That's interesting. I've asked the question, "Should society as a collective have distinct goals and aspirations separate from the goals and aspirations of individuals in that society?" Those in power believe the answer to this question is yes, and furthermore only a special "elite" class of people are qualified to establish those goals for the collective. Unfortunately they also believe setting rules for individuals is also necessary, and they don't care about the Non Aggression Principle.

A related question is, "in the absence of explicit societal goals (or a recognized process to establish them), would it be possible to identify societal goals from the varied and diverse activities of individuals in the collective? That is, to identify collective goals out of the emergent properties of individual actions.

If you're an anarchist and don't believe in a ruling class, but believe mankind would be better served by establishing goals for collectives, how is consensus reached on what those goals should be? What constitutes a "quorum" (i.e. what is the minimum number of people required to establish a "societal" goal? Doesn't that imply those people also "represent" the 80% members? Are there ownership issues associated with collective goals, or are these considered part of the "commons" (i.e. 20% of the members of a hypothetical anarchistic society want to establish a community park. Are members in the 80% category allowed to use the park at no cost? I say that would not be "fair" to those who made the effort to create the park. If the cost to use the park was zero or minimal for the 20% members and 80% members had to pay a per-use fee, now that seems reasonable by comparison.

One thing is very clear - if participation is ALWAYS voluntary, it eliminates a huge number of problems!