We don't need a government

Even before making your points, you seem to miss out on a basic fact: if there was no government, who would take care of the roadways and ensure that everyone had access to safe routes of travel? If it was privatized, you could expect far more tolls than your standard taxes pay... after all, private companies would own the road. Without a government, who's to guarantee a fire department will put out your house if it is on fire or that you'll have access to an ambulance if you suffer an emergency? Maybe someone will help, but who's to say their help will be enough? What about public hospitals? How will they stay open without the money they get fed from the government? Do you want everyone to have to pay exponentially more for such basic services that are offered to all citizens no matter what their race/ethnicity, sex/gender, or creed? How about all the schools in the country that are only open because of government funding? Or do you think the country is better off without the ability to read unless they are lucky enough to be born into a family that can and will teach them or has the money for them to be taught? While I agree the quality of service for certain services such as education should be improved, that is something that should be taken up with your local school district and the associated government. If you can't show ideas for ideal, progressive change, then what right do you have to say the system as it is doesn't work? If we were in swapped roles, I'd be able to point out each flaw of the education system. For example: The majority of the US doesn't know their internationally protected rights. Sure, some schools teach it. Most don't. They know their US rights, but what good does that do when the US doesn't dictate what rights the rest of the world must honor? Anyhow, onto your actual points... 1: Taxes, while also used to fund politicians paychecks, are used to pay for the services you enjoy and take for granted: roads, school, ambulance, fire, and in most cases police... these are all examples of services most citizens enjoy having as guarantees. If we didn't have taxes of some form, we couldn't have these services. Additionally, the only citizens who would have twice as much money without taxes, both in theory and principle, are the 1%. They are the ones who suffer an upwards of 50% tax, and even that is in EXTREME circumstances. The average person sees far lower taxes than that, so your belief that you'd have twice the money without taxes is either inflated or you are rich enough you have no reason to legitimately care. 2: Ah, so you're Canadian... Cross out what I said about you having police... I should have said "mounties", eh? Anyhow, yeah, you'd have no foreign wars... but you'd also have no unified, large-scale defense force for if/when a hostile force such as ISIS attacked. Sure, you might be able to gather an impromptu militia, but they're an organized fighting force with proper training. As for that money going towards computers, housing, and food, sure... ideally, that is what happen. But reality doesn't follow ideals. But let's say for instance that was what happened... The money was evenly distributed... Who'd accept the money? Money has value because the government says it has value. If there is no government, your dollars will be worthless. Suddenly, you're not just back to where you began, but, rather, you're setback even further because now NOBODY has the money they need for food or other resources because nobody has reason to accept money. The people who are producers (ie companies) will now control all the power. Farms are mostly owned by companies or people supporting their families. While there are some exceptions, it's not enough to keep people who live in the cities from being out of luck. The only way to survive would be to produce things people want, but not everybody can do that. Or do the sick and elderly not deserve to eat just because they can't make things anymore? As for the bombs that kill people: yeah... It sucks, but their production is a side effect of insuring your freedom and their use, ideally, is for guaranteeing it if something happens. Then again, real life is rarely an ideal. 3: Let's assume magically money maintained value somehow, which is a de facto impossibility, but let's assume anyways... Sure, no corporate welfare which sounds great at first... but then you consider pharmaceutical companies are the people we trust to properly produce the medicines we need. If they go under, then how are people going to be able to reliably get the medicine they need and how are we going to be able to develop new, life-saving medicines? Costs wouldn't fall. They'd rise because it would go from multiple companies to few companies until there is nothing but a monopoly. Once one company wins big, they never again have to be concerned about competition. From then on, they can charge whatever they want and nobody can complain because they are now the only guaranteed safe producer. 4: The drug war isn't about keeping drug prices high. It's about, supposedly, stopping the illegal use of drugs which can result both in self-harm and harm towards others. That said, it is wildly out-of-control and doesn't serve that purpose, but that is the ideal behind it. The street cost of drugs is high because they're not legally obtained. If a person needs a drug, ideally they should be able to legally obtain it, and that's where I somewhat agree with you, but only your ideal, not your statement. There should be no such thing as an illegal drug (unless it is reasonable to suspect an average person may hurt someone else by being under its effects as is the effect of some psychotropics), merely a list of activities in which being under the influence during is heavily punishable. 5: You think everyone hiring bodyguards would be cheaper? Well, considering money in the way we think of it right now would no longer exist, so I guess in a way you're right. But your sentiment? That's way off-base. Bodyguards aren't cheap. The better your bodyguard, the safer you are, but if something happens to your bodyguards? You're S.O.L.. What if you can't afford a decent bodyguard? What if they refuse to work for you for whatever reason? Police are there to insure private security forces don't act like samurai in feudal Japan... In theory, it gives EVERYONE security. Sure, there are cases where officers fail their civic duties, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a general benefit to society as opposed to a detriment. What you are suggesting is that we allow those with power and resources to have more power and resources while the common person is used as a punching bad. You seem to think you're advocating for a utopia, but the future you preach for is nothing more than a dystopian hellscape ripped right out of some futuristic horror fiction.