Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

The point being, in a proper democracy, an elected official would not exercise authority directly related to their past value to society, because the power of the elector would be so great that the elected wouldn't have incentive to become corrupt.The saying about power corrupting, is true.Furthermore, why should pre-established value to society automatically equate to having more power? We are all human beings. This isn't Beowulf. You shouldn't necessarily have more societal power just because you have done great things. Nor does the act of doing great things automatically mean you are fit to have societal power.By power, I do not mean authority to control others. I mean more something like reputation, combined with wealth. A person must act kindly to be seen as kind, generous, etc. This is the social aspect. I was more speaking on the economic aspect. In the absence of government favor, the only way for people to consistently gain wealth, is to produce even more wealth to trade (value for value). Real money is the equivalent of an IOU from society for a certain value of wealth, which one has contributed for society's use. Therefore, each person who trades with another is constantly "voting" on that individual's value to society. The more money or wealth (including the goodwill of others, for non economic transactions) you have, the greater value you have to society, as expressed by the members of that society.Not if the power in the elector is such that they have the ability to replace politicians they elect with the snap of their fingers.What if they do something to violate the rights of 40% to benefit 60%? What recourse does the 40% have?All of your arguments assume that everyone agrees on what "improvement" in society is. I favor more liberty. Others favor free stuff. Some favor more security. You can't have all these things.Furthermore, as long as nationally elected officials are not creating and voting upon laws that significantly change individual lives, then the worry of the majority opinions hurting the minority is a non-issue. If the smaller the scale, the more laws effect individual lives, then that just means people can conveniently live in cities, districts, and states which better accommodate their opinions on how the law should effect them.This is the purpose of the republic that was set up by the founders of the United States. The US was a union of states (governments) which had autonomy unless dealing with foreign powers, or unless the natural rights of the citizen of the state were being violated. The individual states chose what authority they exercised, through their individual constitutions. Citizens were then able to choose the sort of society they wished to live in, both through voting locally on laws which were within the authority of the state constitution, or by moving to a state which had laws that suited them.The essence of this setup can be seen by reading Article one, section 8, The 9th amendment and the 10th amendment of the US constitution.~=paraphrasedart 1 sec8 ~"this is what government can do (enumerated powers)"9th amendment ~"the people have more rights than just those enumerated in the constitution"10th amendment ~"If this constitution doesn't specifically give the federal government power to do something, that power may fall to the states, or is retained as a right of the people."In the absence of a government, the market would serve to give the most "influence" to the people who satisfied the demands of the consumer(the voter) most efficiently.The goal of society is to advance our species, like just about everything psychologically healthy humans do.There is no one goal of society. There are as many goals as there are people.I don't advocate more order, I advocate both freedom and order being properly applied in proper amounts as to create the most prosperity.A free market does this.And the complete elimination ... as much prosperity as possible.I will agree that minimal government helps facilitate some things, but any more than the minimum has government interfering in ways that cause the market and the society to be much less efficient in creating prosperity.The people are not the government. The people are the society and the market. To advocate social engineering, or that government "steer" markets, is to advocate government control of the people.