Within the context of this small, agricultural town, the farmers of the town would farm a singular, massive, highly-efficient farm (or, perhaps, for redundancy, two large farms). As well, “thieves” do not exist without ownership to condemn them, and would merely be some people that came to utilize the resources of the farm.

Now, one may wonder why it is that the farmers would not ban together to augment their own wealth via ownership and the subsequent implementation of money and state. That humanity has already “been there” and “done that” should affirm to them that such a path is ill-advised and prevent its wholesale (and, thus, successful) pursuit, for, ultimately, ownership may only be enforced to one’s benefit if others are willing to enforce it (something that becomes more difficult as fewer retain ownership [that is, remain owners]). (In the instance one enforces ownership oneself, one forgoes an equal measure of production. [The same is true of the enforcement of money to a greater degree and of the enforcement of state to a yet greater one.])

Additionally, not all government constitutes non-optional hierarchy. For example, Great Empire of Earth is an imperial anarchist despotism, which means that there is one endowed with all powers of government (in this case, by the “G.E. Emperor” [G.E. doesn’t have a constitution]) wherewith one may not comply (i.e., compliance with “the Despot” is optional). The optional-ness of compliance with the government is not codified in law, for it is the wish of the G.E. Emperor that it would always be implied (and, therefore, that one could not transgress it for a lack of positive limitations thereupon).