Government needs to be abolished

I apologize for taking so long. Work has kept me away from my computer. Of course leadership is a human trait. However, government is a monopoly on force, and there is no problem if people can voluntarily choose to follow people, but that is not what we have. Today around 1/4 of the population actually votes. Causing the majority of people who didn't vote to live under forced leadership (we must reasonably assume they didn't vote because they don't want a "leader"). Yes government is inefficient with money. Multi trillions of dollars in debt can really drive that home. Now lets look at the constitution (which I am not in favor of). The constitution was put in place to limit government. Over the 230+ years how well do you think it has don't in keeping the government in check? It utterly failed. No if's, and's, or but's about it. I encourage you to read Lysander Spooner's The constitution of no authority. A very good read that uses logic, common sense, and reason to show how the constitution fails to do anything at all. Including binding anyone to a contract. Regardless, if a small government is given the ability to use force to collect taxes, no paper (the constitution) can or would stop them from raising taxes and growing to a gigantic government. If it does not have the ability to use force then it is not a government. For example I can voluntarily follow rules and pay for services in a community. However if the "leaders" want to raise the prices I can choose not to pay and go to someone else. Therefore it cant be a government. It can be leadership but I don't argue that as I don't see a problem with leadership. Your correct about how businesses need government. Without government who would steal the tax payers money to bail out failing corporations? The largest immoral business owners ARE protected by government. Look at the housing bubble. The credit crisis, the failing car industry etc etc. The list can go on and on. See, when a government bails out a mortgage company, there is no risk. To make things easier imagine I have $1,000. I go to a casino and lose everything. Well if someone says don't worry, I will rob someone (government), and give you another $1,000 there is NO risk anymore. There is no incentive to do moral business practices. Now If we had a free market, big bad business owners who take immoral risks would fail. Allowing smaller competition to rise in its place. Who ensures the value of currency? Obviously not the government. Logic and reason will show that it has not protected the value of our currency. Just look at the purchasing power of our dollar. The fed reserve (a private bank not owned by the government), was given control of our currency. So no the government does not have any say on our currency. This would not be a big issue if we were not forced to use it, and actually were able to have competing currencies, something that Ron Paul agrees with. At minimum, the government disregarded their "obligation" to protect the value of currency when they removed the gold and/or silver standard. Making money backed by the faith and credit of the united states. Which looking at ever increasing debt mountain will prove "faith and credit" means absolutely nothing. Who guarantees banked assets? Not the government! Have you seen whats going on in Greece? People are only able to take 60 euros out per day. That of course is if the banks are even open. Lets use logic and reason for this. I will not go into all the details of Greece, but basically the Greek government is asking for another bailout. Now why do they need another bailout? Well, we both know how horrible government is with money. So lets look at us. If I am in a ton of debt, and am not handling my debt well as it continually is growing, is it logical for you to bank with me? Is it safe simply because I use the word "guarantee"? Absolutely not. The second you hand your money to me, is the second I became a bit more wealthy. Not you. Now this would not be a huge issue if we didn't have government around. Because if one bank screws its customers, that bank would go under. It wouldn't get any more customers. It benefits all if good business practices are upheld. Who teaches their employees skills? Who will build the unprofitable roads? Ok, lets look at what government is. Government is in all actuality, a concept. Using logic and reason its not real. It is just people. So we can then logically conclude that people build roads, people teach, people protect, etc, etc. So if people build roads now and teach skills now, without a government people still do it. Because remember, government does not actually exist. People do. So roads fall into the same category as the other services you listed (protection, fire, hospitals etc). Regardless of the service, You and I both agree government is horrible at allocating money (remember the giant debt) to market services. The free market would be so much better for many reasons! The top two reasons would be: The market is made up of the people who want the services. The market has accountability built in. While the government has ZERO accountability. After all, if they need more money they will just point guns at people. Now many people are concerned about affordability. However lets first look at how efficient government is in poor areas. Public schools in poor areas are horrible. Many police forces don't even go into poor areas because its too dangerous. These accusations are not far fetched. Now lets remove government from these poor places and allow someone to build a business without having to spend thousands of dollars on licenses and permits. I cant even open a lemonade stand without talking to at least 3 different government alphabet groups (DOT, FDA, DHS). Look, even in poor areas most people have a cell phone, which at one point was very expensive, so to think the private sector cant come up with ways to defend poor areas better than the government is an irrational thought. Your example Crassus was a roman politician. Working within government. That is how he was able to get away with what he was doing. Remove government and allow competition to flourish. The only way someone would have a monopoly is if the market loved the price and the service! Do you know the biggest unnatural (not to be confused with natural) killer to people? Government. As shocking as it sounds, government is the biggest one. That brings us to your claim about there is more death in a government-free society than in a government run society. Your statement is false. History proves that. See people ( this may be hard to believe) are not interest in killing people. If we were, we really wouldn't care about cops and rules. We would just kill if we didn't get our way. You know who does that? Government. Now lets talk about Thomas Hobbes. A man who believed that people are inherently evil and needs to be controlled. Using logic, is it safe to say that the people put into power are evil as well? Since we are all humans? Or does using an imaginary concept called "government" automatically make a person good. Do we see how using reason and logic proves this to be a confusing way to think? I am running out of characters but I need to touch on Somalia. Everyday People tell me we need government or else we would fall into terrible "anarchy". People get their definition of anarchy from movies. Anarkos means "without rulers". Not "without rules". The majority of Somalia is run under the Xeer judicial system. There is no one government running the judicial system. Also we need to understand that foreign aid and weapons are being sent there by our government (which we cant stop), to the wrong hands over there. We have the technological advancement. They are practical 3rd world country. We are a robust nation. Apples and oranges my friend. However I would love to debate their growth without government at a later time! I wish I knew I could add more rounds.