We do not need Government

After reading Pro's opening argument, I reached for Thomas Paine with the vague idea he was some sort of defender of the US government and would help me out. But no:"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government and would exist if the formality of government was abolished...The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government." [1]The important thing here is what's meant by "government". Paine's main argument was against the hereditary governments of Europe. For centuries, they justified their existence with the idea that the peasants could not rule themselves and needed the heavy hand of the aristocracy. But when Pro says "government" she means something more modern, I think. But what?According to the Oxford Dictionary Online: Definition of govern verb [with object] conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority [2] Middle English: from Old French governer, from Latin gubernare 'to steer, rule', from Greek kubernan 'to steer Definition of government noun the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office the system by which a state or community is governed the action or manner of controlling or regulating a state, organization, or people [3] In America, people call the government "the administration". The purpose of this, I suppose, is to make the government out to be vast secretary who is humbly and faithfully carrying out the will of the people. Pro argues that people can distribute resources equally among themselves without a government. She didn't explain how it could work. I can only think of two possibilities: 1. People are naturally fair and take care of each other. People will look after others and try to be fair, but, on the whole, they'll look after themselves first. As the old saying puts it: I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers. In any society, some individuals will be stronger than others. Some will work harder and think they deserve more and so on. Advantage will build apon advantage and those with advantage will have no trouble justifying it to themselves. There needs to be an objective system to ensure fairness and equality. 2. People will administer their own system to make sure resources are shared fairly. Any system that people develop to ensure fairness is a government, according to the definition above. Pro makes a series of claims about left-Anarchic society: shelter would be readily available and guaranteed to everyone; friendship and family relationships would improve; everyone would be equal and the sense of love and belonging would be stronger than ever; confidence and self-esteem would improve; everyone would respect one another more and be respected in return; everyone would have a job. These are extraordinary, magnificent claims. I don't understand how Pro can be so sure they'll come about, though.This style of persuasion reminds me a lot of elections in South America, where all kinds of things are promised but fail to eventuate, time after time, no matter who gets in.Pro needs to explain the mechanism by which all this would be achieved.I don't have enough space to address all the claims individually, so I'll just do three examples.Firstly, there's the idea that family relationships would improve in the absence of government. This is something I've noticed myself, actually, that across cultures the strength of family relationships is inversely proportional to the strength of government. So I'm sure that Pro is right, that without government, family ties would become all-important. This is not necessarily a good thing. Without government, individuals turn to family (or "tribe") for protection and insurance. They become utterly dependent on their extended families for survival. Any sense of broader community disappears. Nepotism becomes a duty, and corruption standard. This has been my observation in countries such as Peru and Nepal where the government's grip on society has been weak. It's very unlike Pro's description of a left-Anarchic society, but it seems to me much more likely to be what would occur in the absence of government.Secondly, Pro claims that rape "wouldn't happen in an anarchy as anarchy wouldn't have sexual standards or oppressive gender standards," and the only rape that would occur would be associated with mental illness. Even if we put aside the issue of how to deal with mentally ill rapists, this vision of anarchy is actually very menacing.Pro herself has admitted that gender standards belong to society (i.e. people). These are attitudes and perspectives that people have. Under anarchy, people "wouldn't have" these ideas. When you consider the power, the insidious level of control that this "anarchy" must have if it can uproot something as deep-seated and personal as gender standards from our minds, well, I just shudder. This sounds much, much worse than what we have already, terribly flawed though the current system is. I have no love of oppressive gender standards, of course, but I consider the right to think what I like far, far more important.Thirdly, Pro complains that the American government takes tax money to use in wars This is a legitimate complaint. She also makes complaints related to wages, in particular the minimum wage, inequality, education and the media. I agree with everything she has said about these issues. However, they could all be addressed if the government stopped fighting wars, raised the minimum wage, taxed the rich more and the poor less, and improved education. In other words, the problem is better addressed by improving government rather than removing it entirely. I'm not sure what to suggest about the media. How would the media work in an anarchy? Finally, Pro said "God save the Queen". She completely lost me here. Is this a joke? Irony? Is she talking about Queen Elizabeth II? Surely she can't be arguing for a monarchy...This round has raised more questions from me than debating points. I look forward to Pro's response.1. Thomas Paine Rights of Man first published 1791, Penguin Classics 1985, page 163.2. http://oxforddictionaries.com...3. http://oxforddictionaries.com...