We don't need a government

Here's the thing, I now have reason to believe you are a Poe. Unfortunately, since this is supposed to be a debate, I'm forced to take your answers to me seriously... "So we would set up a system, if you wanted to road repaved then you would put in a little bit of money. Then we would give that money to people who are going to repave the roads." So... taxes. You're countering the need for taxes by saying we would have taxes to make up for the lack of taxes if there was no government. At which point, the individuals in charge of collecting said tax would be the new government. That's part of a government's duties after all. "If you walk, and don't care if the roads get repaved then don't worry we aren't gonna give you jail threats for not paying money for something that doesn't affect you." This is called "Tax Exemption". It happens when an individual does not qualify to owe a certain tax or set of taxes. As for your second point, you're not arguing against government there, but, rather, arguing against unethical practices done by corrupt individuals in the false name of civil defense. Not every government does that and, honestly, this works better as an argument for government reformation as opposed to government elimination. Besides, do you think that even if the government was gone public surveillance would stop? No, it just means there would no longer be laws restricting what those people could tap, study, and survey. If anything, it would give them MORE power instead of less because now they don't have anything restricting them. As for water and electricity still flowing: that may be true for a time, but is not an assurance for all people in the nation, particularly in rural areas where competition over such resources is tough even with laws to protect those in less-advantaged positions. Sure, if the government were to shut down for a week or so, things would still run... but shut down versus removed? There would be no laws. Basically, you'd be looking at The Purge to a minor degree. "where we can travel where ever we want as long as it won't expose the government." How can traveling expose the government? Please, don't just say things at random. Clarify your meaning so that not just I but the readers as well are able to understand you. Sure, citizens built these things... because the government paid them to do so. There were construction contracts, teaching contracts, and so forth. You act like people chose to go out and just build these things because it was what they wanted to do. No. They built these things because they were paid to do so. The government paid the companies who employed the workers who did the job. So, what makes me think that this wouldn't happen without the government? The fact the government had to pay for these things to be built and bankrolls their maintenance. Yes, education is mandatory, but it is also NECESSARY. We have seen that by making education voluntary, parents who aren't educated or aren't looking out for their children's best interests will bar their children from attending school past whatever point is mandatory if possible. So, by mandating education, the government actually ensured many kids the ability to be successful individuals. The real problem is that people don't realize you don't have to go to a school to meet the requirements for mandatory education. There are so many exceptions and variations. Furthermore, your complaints against it are not arguments for the deletion of the mandatory education system, but rather for a reformation of public school policies and the priorities of our testing system. It's worth noting, testing does NOT have to mean the Standardized Testing we have all become used to. Do you know how much it costs to run a hospital? Doctors aren't cheap. The supplies are expensive. Medicine isn't cheap. You seem to think people would group together to fund this, but when hospitals try to get donations to cover what the government's allowance doesn't, they often struggle to get what they need already. Without the government funding? It's questionable if they could be self-sufficient. At best, private practices would dominate, but a private practice rarely has the technological bells and whistles of a real hospital. The real hospitals would be far more necessary and valuable, but as a resort more expensive. And you can hardly have competition when hospitals are often too far apart from each other to do so. Besides, the government isn't restricting competition of hospitals. Nothing is keeping private hospitals from being built aside from the sheer cost of doing so. As for citizens funding hospitals, they'd treat it like they generally treated insurance prior to Obamacare mandating it legally: Pay for it if they think they may need it or otherwise not bother. As for paying with IOUs... what incentive would someone have for repaying? As of now, it is *technically* the law, but hospitals often make exceptions for those who can't afford to, thanks to the government payrolling them. But if hospitals can't just bill the government for the IOU service, how will they recoup the money from those who can't (or choose not to) pay? It's not like the people who skip out on the bill can be arrested... No police. You'd result in hospitals refusing to treat people who don't pay up first (resulting in emergency cases dying en masse) or keeping people prisoner until they paid the bill in some manner. As for your crime all over the place crack: No, I wouldn't but not for the reason you seem to assume. My moral compass is far skewed from the "morally right" compass most people seem to claim to follow. But I have seen what these "moral" people do when they don't like something. They riot. They vandalize. They loot. They commit crime because they think they are in the right and are owed it. That is what will happen. People acting in their own self-interest because they think they are the rightful arbiters of good. As for the Toronto incident: the government isn't some omnipresent force. It can't outright stop a person from doing something, but it can enforce punishments on people committing what it lists as crimes. What you are talking about is removing the safety bubble that de-incentivizes commission of crime. No law means no crime. No such thing as crime means no reason not to do things you were dissuaded from. A lot of psychopaths play within the bounds of the law to avoid the consequences. No law means no consequences. Gangs could act more openly and free. Crimes of passion would be more frequent because there's not the ever-present reminder that you can go to jail for your actions. Crimes of stupidity, negligence, and so forth would increase (i.e. drinking and driving, leaving children in cars, and so on). If you want a perfect example of what no government would mean: Look at Somalia and tell me if that is what you really want the US/Canada to be like. "While we [may] need some of the services they offer[,] there are far better entities and ways to provide everyone of those services voluntarily." What are these ways? Everything you are suggesting is a childish ideal that I have so far easily poked holes in and shown your lack of knowledge and understanding of the topics. You assume money would even hold value, but we'd more likely be a bartering society or using gold as currency once again. Canadian/American dollars will be worthless because there would be no government to say the money has value. Your dream world relies on generosity from others, but without any backup plan for if people aren't as generous as you seem to unrealistically believe them to be. "To me the government hasn't earned it's "cut" out of my money[.]" To be honest, you sound like a high school student (at most). If you are older, you're showing the very failures of your public education system that you commented on and that I acknowledged. I don't for a moment believe you are old enough to be paying taxes, but even assuming you are: if you upset that the government isn't doing enough, fight for reform, not upheaval. Fix what is broken, don't throw away the entire system just because it has flaws that need fixed. It is better to have a rundown car that gets you where you need to go than it is to not have any realistic means of transportation. Fix the car (read: your government) instead of scrapping it, leaving you with nothing which honestly is far worse. If there was no government, your money would be worthless scraps of paper, so you would actually be worse off now than you were before. As for your complaints about lack of welfare: the poor in the US and Canada are far better off than the majority of people in much of the world. They can go to superstore dumpsters and get food that hasn't even really expired, and that is assuming there aren't any soup kitchens, shelters, or food pantries for them to get food from. In regards to your comment about your country starting wars with countries you haven't heard of, I have to question how many wars you think Canada has been in. Even then, Canada's involvement is relatively minor. Sure, no war would be better, but it's better to solve the problem than complain that it is a problem. Removing the government doesn't fix the fact your larger community is in conflict. If anything, it will increase the conflict, just on a domestic front instead of an international front. This, in turn, will make the conflict you see seem even larger and more devastating than how it looks from a tv screen. Your "solution" just creates new and, at times, worse problems. Don't gripe about my formatting when your writing is barely legible half of the time.