We don't need a government

"Well I am laughing as you said my new solution only creates new and at times worse problems." Why? I have shown the problems your short-sighted and myopic suggestions create. A good solution minimizes the number of problems, not creates more. This is the reason why war is supposed to be one of the last solutions to a problem between countries: it creates more problems in the attempt of solving one or two other problems. By laughing at the fact I point this out, you're stating that you don't care about actually fixing problems, but rather that you just have a blind hatred towards government without any care for the damage your ideas would cause if implemented. "No TSA!" The "jail cells" you're calling the economical seating are that way because the airlines chose to design them like that. TSA generally stops being directly involved after you get on-board. As for the security procedures, yes they are overly thorough, but that's a case for reformation not removal. 30 April 2018 through 6 May 2018, TSA caught 90 guns that people were trying to bring on board. 73 were loaded. 35 had a bullet in the chamber. Sure, there are times where they get excessive, such as when they get overly-concerned over replicas, but that's because an untrained eye can't tell the difference between a replica and the real thing most of the time and that uncertainty can allow someone to hijack a plane. As for your comment "we'd like to keep our clothes on, thanks!" TSA policy does not allow agents to even ask you to undress. Strip-searches are against TSA protocol. If an agent tries to make you do so, then you should refuse outright and demand to speak to their superior so you can report them immediately for violating procedure and for inappropriate behaviour. "Everyone could get a job in private industry." Like everyone can already do? Besides, there wouldn't be any more public service as the government, which is responsible for paying public workers, would no longer exist. Also, companies would have more money, but money in and of itself would lack all value. Do you remember History class when they discussed Germany's 1923 hyperinflation? Imagine that. No government means that money is nothing more than scraps of paper unless you could somehow convince everyone to still agree the money has some sort of value... which it wouldn't. A good example of this is Somalia. Once it lost its central government, its currency's value plummeted. While it is the official currency of the nation still, it's less than worthless to the point that transactions are basically done with US money because our currency still holds value. Even then, anyone who didn't have US money before the transition would have been screwed. As for your claimed benefits in your point "No more Federal Reserve"... There is just so much here that is wrong. First, the gold standard doesn't remove inflation. If anything, the low quantity of gold in the world makes it even easier to manipulate the inflation/deflation of the currency's value. Next, seeing as there would no longer be a central entity printing money, if we assumed a gold standard were to be used and private industries printed money, then that means there would be dozens of different currencies in place in a given city and you'd have to be able to trust their currencies held the stated value. The sheer exchange rates you'd have to deal with would be excessive and basically divide those cities into various corporatocracies in the end... meaning in your attempt to get rid of government, you'd just be creating MANY more smaller governments. And do you really think companies would be honest when there is no reason to be? "Without the fed inducing the business cycle" You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The business cycle is a naturally occurring thing in business that the Fed does not "induce". It happens and the Fed merely can have some minor sway over aspects of it, but doesn't control the whole. "People would be able to invest wisely" With what money? The money printed by a bunch of mini-governments? As for the rest of this section, you're obviously just spewing words with no understanding of what you are talking about. If you are going to make arguments, make arguments that you actually understand. "No more entrenched elite." This is a fact of life. There will ALWAYS be elites entrenched in the upper echelons of society. Even in Somalia, the elites are those who can gather the most power fast. "The government's illegitimate monopoly on force is the only thing with allows a tiny group to stay in power perpetually through gaming the system and profiting off government handouts and grants of monopoly privilege." You are literally just saying words that don't really connect. Government officials in the US and Canada are ELECTED into power, meaning the people choose them either directly or indirectly (choosing somebody else who they know have the power to seat people in specific positions.) Aside from that, nothing you said in that holds together as even an idea in order to refute... Stop trying to be fancy and show off. Just speak like a normal person you daft child. "End the government, and you destroy their tool of conquest." Yeah... Canada has been doing a whole lot of conquering.... like... and... oh and let's not forget when they conquered... "Without a government there can be no ruling class which claims powers over others." Somalia is once again proof you are wrong. "People can organize themselves voluntarily in their own self-interest, the same way we do now in almost every sector of our lives." So then what is the problem? If people can already do this in almost every sector of our lives, why would we need to change things? "Our nanny state system is what keeps people hobbled and dependent," How so? Don't just say meaningless words. Explain them and why you are saying them. "remove the rules and restrictions and give people" 1) the chance to kill you and everybody you love, 2) conquer, rape, and pillage as far as the eye can see without concern for consequences, 3) a slow painful death as nobody has a means of buying anything since all money would have lost value so food and water is now inaccessible. "and you'll see a complete societal turn around," for the worse. "just read this!" I did and it is full of inane rambling without any kind of coherent thought put behind it. I regret every word of yours I was obligated to read. 'I will be arguing that Government is not necessary for our fundamental living needs." For the fundamentals, absolutely. The problem is everything past that seeing how much the government has influenced people. Once money no longer works right, most people will be lost and confused, and that's the first and simplest thing that will go awry. "I always forget to provide definitions in the first round which always set me back so this time I won't forget." You should explain your meanings as you're saying them, not in footnotes. "The word Government implies "governance" over a group of people." Congratulations, you're 2 rounds behind me on this. "If everyone is governing, then the word Government would no longer apply." No, it means that we are in a "pure" democracy. "If everyone has power, than nobody does." Tell the ancient Greeks that seeing as the first half of this defined their system of government's political theory. "Government always implies governance over a group of people by a class of representatives." No it doesn't. Again, have you heard of "democracy"? The US and Canada are both partly this thing you seem to not have heard of before. "An organized society does not necessarily means "Government."" In order to have an organized society, you need to have order, which heavily implies laws. If you have laws, you have a government that placed those laws and is supposed to be responsible for enforcing the punishments for violating those laws. "Simply because it's organized and systematic doesn't necessarily correlate to Government, which implies "governance."" Clearly you don't know what you are saying still. How can you have an organized society without a government of some form, whether explicit or implied. An explicit government is one where people know there is a government. An implied government is one where it exists even without people having to say it does. For example, a man commits a murder. The locals rally together and hang the murderer. That is still implied government because that shows a clear system of law and punishment established by a governing collective. Just because everyone is part of the governing body, that doesn't mean it isn't still a governing body. "I will be arguing for a Left Anarchic society which is freedom from both Government and hierarchy." Actually, you are arguing for corporatocracy and/or traditional democracy which was a failed system of government because it gave unilateral power to those who had the majority ideology. "I will be arguing against the notion that we need a Government for our benefit as a society and that it is not only unnecessary to our living needs, but detrimental towards our functioning as a society." Actually your entire argument was that we need a different, more easily exploited government system where those who already have resources and power would have exponentially more and those who don't will hold exponentially less. "Con will argue that we do in fact need a Government for our living needs" Oh, no. I could probably make a great case for why we don't need government. The fact of the matter is, having a government provides to many benefits to large societies such as full-on nations like the US and Canada that getting rid of government altogether may be enough to destroy these countries for various aforementioned reasons.