Getting the correct definition of the state is important, and using "government" and "state" is very important as well.
Stephan Kinsella in a recent FB post explains it,
"Libertarians! Be careful about using the term "government" as a synonym for "the state." The state is an agency that has either taxing power or the power to outlaw competition (and in practice, both; and either power implies the other [update: the reason is: if you can tax, then you can subsidize your services and outcompete other agencies--think of public schools now and why private schools are a minority; and if you can outlaw competitors, you can charge monopoly prices, i.e. a tax; think the US postal service or the military and its $700 toilet seats]).
But if you cede the word "government" to them, and equate it with state--our statist opponents will engage in equivocation (a most nasty habit). "Don't you believe in law and order, sir?" they ask faux-innocently. "Government, that is?" Then you say .. "... yes.... law ... order... defense .... goood....?" and then later, they pounce, "Aha! but you are against the state, yet you said against government. Which is it??" (Here, they have equated government with state; earlier, they left the definitions separete. Classic equivocation.)
Consider: mind and brain are different concepts. So are self and body. I can change my mind; can I change my brain? My brain has a weight; does my mind? A dead person has a brain but no mind. I am myself and I own my body; but my self is not my body. Etc. Likewise in a free, private-law society, there is "government"--the governing institutions, such as law and justice. That does not mean there is a state. A state is an agency having a geographical monopoly on law. Governance means something different. Even a go-kart has a governor, but no state.
Consider:
"Just minutes after being invited by the Queen to form a Government, "
Surely there is no implication here that there is a stateless society right now in the UK. That a state is going to be formed. No. "Government" is a distinct concept from the state.
Lesson done for now.
Update:
In the US we refer to the "Obama administration". "Administration" is basically what is meant by "government" in the UK, it seems to me. The state exists underneath and independent of the current administration/"government".
For a definition of the state see Hoppe
"Let me begin with the definition of a state. What must an agent be able to do to qualify as a state? This agent must be able to insist that all conflicts among the inhabitants of a given territory be brought to him for ultimate decision-making or be subject to his final review. In particular, this agent must be able to insist that all conflicts involving himself be adjudicated by him or his agent. And implied in the power to exclude all others from acting as ultimate judge, as the second defining characteristic of a state, is the agent’s power to tax: to unilaterally determine the price that justice seekers must pay for his services.
"Based on this definition of a state, it is easy to understand why a desire to control a state might exist. For whoever is a monopolist of final arbitration within a given territory can make laws. And he who can legislate can also tax. Surely, this is an enviable position."
And:
"Conventionally, the state is defined as an agency with two unique characteristics. First, it is a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction). That is, it is the ultimate arbiter in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Second, the state is a territorial monopolist of taxation. That is, it is an agency that unilaterally fixes the price citizens must pay for its provision of law and order.
"Predictably, if one can only appeal to the state for justice, justice will be perverted in favor of the state. Instead of resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. Worse, while the quality of justice will fall under monopolistic auspices, its price will rise. Motivated like everyone else by self-interest but equipped with the power to tax, the state agents’ goal is always the same: to maximize income and minimize productive effort."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/13/david-cameron-resigns-theresa-may-queen-prime-minister-live/
Next lesson: why coercion != aggression. [ http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/the-problem-with-coercion/ ]
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/the-nature-of-the-state-and-why-libertarians-hate-it/ "
While I disagree with Kinsella's use of the word government to not imply initiatory force, I think we may benefit from changing how we say things since the vast majority of people seem to be unable to think rationally when the word "government" is involved. Perhaps "state" has less emotional baggage with people?
Government breaks down etymologically into "govern" and "ment." "Govern" comes from the latin gubernare which means to control. There's some controversy on the "ment" part, with many arguing that it derives from the latin mente or mens meaning "the mind," and others arguing that it's from the latin mentum meaning "the result of." So government either means "to control the mind" or "the result of control"; either way, it involves external control, not cooperation, so it is fundamentally and necessarily aggressive, by definition.
Even so, I agree that we may be well served to abandon that word to the sophists and use "the state" instead to mean governments, even though "state" simply derives from the latin status which means "the way things are."