In the U.S. the government does not force us to go to work, so I would imagine nothing would change there.
How is it not a “government”?
Well, most goods and services are paid for immediately. For those that are not, there is the credit system. And if someone is not credit worthy, then they do not get credit.
There is some good reading on the Mises site about natural courts springing up without government. Even in the current U.S. system, I believe MOST cases are settled OUTSIDE of a court through arbitration and other means. So a world without a functioning government does not mean a world without courts. And if you look into government courts, they are full of abuse.
That is the point, there would be no legislation. There would be no standing army. There would be no trade barriers. If people want to go fight in other nation’s wars, they could. But I really doubt anyone ever would.
And how is a 100% vote not rule by majority?
If a vote did pass, then everyone who voted for it could not ignore it. So your statement is false. Only those that did not get to vote could ignore it (this way legislation passed does not affect the next generation).
It would serve a purpose. Pretty much to let statists have feel good feelings that they got to vote.
Um, there would be a government. A democratic government.
What about them?
Do you think it is possible to get 100+ million people to agree on anything? What about 100,000? Or how about 10,000?
No, nothing would ever be passed into law. On the highly slim chance that something were, then they would have to figure out how to enforce it at that time, but it could only be enforced on the people that were able to vote for it.
Not likely, but it’s better to be prepared.
I hate to tell the OP this, but here goes: you just described a free market, not a government.
If certain people aren’t bound to the law (non-voters), even if the vote is unanimous, then what is the point? Couldn’t people who do vote for it follow it and people who didn’t be free from its domain? And people who change their mind, or find it to be inconvenient, could just say “I didn’t vote for it?”
No, voting is not the problem. The problem is being subjected to another’s will without consent. A true democracy would eliminate this problem.
No, it results in a free market. But I did describe a “government”. I have come to the conclusion that people cannot exist without some form of government. And this form of government would satisfy that need.
The point would be that those that did vote for it would be subject to it, only if 100% of the voters voted for it.
If even one vote for no is cast, then it would not come into being. Everyone has full veto powers.
If the votes are recorded, then no.
Voting is the subjacation of another…When you vote what do you think you do? Look at Proposition 8 in California. You think gay-marriage is illegal because one person say’s “No” in a public arena? It is voting that “legitimizes” state intervention. That is how government claims it is acting according to the “will of the people” or “the public good” and other ambiguous obnixous claims.
Why would such a system come about? Why is 100% of voters significant, when a unanimous decision still doesn’t bind everyone?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just allow people who like the law to be subject to and not those who don’t. If 99% of the population wants to follow a law they should be entitled to, regardless of the other 1% (assuming the law doesn’t harm that 1%).
Whos doing the recording?
Voting in our current system is subjugation of another, but only because everyone does not have full veto powers. You are talking about the current system, and I agree that in the current system this is true. In my system, it would not be.
What’s the point of the voting system if everyone can continually veto each other? Or are you suggesting that veto power should only rest in the majority?
So the only governement that could ever work is the governement that could never ever work? Figures. 
It is significant because it is binding to those that voted for it.
No. Because then government power gets established, and the minority will eventually get abused by it. If even 51% vote in favour of attacking another country, I guarantee you the other 49% will get dragged into it, against their will. But this does not take away the power from the 51% to go ahead and go to war, but the other countries cannot blame the entire state for it, which would include the 49% that were against it.
Well, if there ever were a time where you could get millions of people to agree on something, then you could figure it out at that point I guess.
The point is that everyone would get to vote.
And I am suggesting the veto power rest in each voters hands.