>A good clue is to look into the systems (i.e. cybernetic) interpretation of the word "governor"

A small pedantic nit but I think the word "governor" in systems engineering predates cybernetic systems. I think the centrifugal ball governor on steam systems was one of the first implementations. As a literal pressure regulating valve, the term "governor" can be derived from literally regulating a system for a desired outcome.

>meant to ensure that the timing & operation

So from this vantage point, the primary role of government is to facilitate coordination between constituent parts of society? I.e., you don't feel they have a role in terms of a service component? Can you give more concrete examples of exactly how this facilitation would be employed? (e.g., it reads to me that creating and maintaining a coherent monetary policy would fit this definition, but your previous comments lead me to believe you may be against that idea). Going way back to my original post, I'm trying to get an understanding of how this view moves from the theoretical to the practical.

>This is also why early government did not have "professional" armies.

Can you elaborate on which governments you are specifically referencing? Because my understanding of many "early" governments is that they were predicated on standing armies, particularly those governments that used them to protect commerce and/or expand their territory.

>If it's for the well-being & growth of all people

This is probably the biggest area where we diverge in opinion. I don't think the overall utility function is increased by getting rid of programs like Medicaid/Medicare, SNAP, etc. and other quality-of-life programs that are largely funded by the income tax you want to abolish. Is your aim to return back to resorting to charity to solve these problems? If everyone acted ethically, I agree that may work better than the current paradigm but I think we've already agreed we can't count upon everyone to act rationally or morally (leaving out the mental bandwidth necessary to understand the problem effectively to best allocate resources). It would be more useful if you could speak in pragmatic terms; this is the point where I (non-derisively) tried to avoid the "hand-wavy" free-market arguments about how the market will solve it.

One area you haven't touched upon that I would be curious about your opinion is the role of government in fostering the growth of nascent industries, particularly those that have such a high-risk/low-reward that the market's individual players generally aren't willing to fund although the potential to benefit society as a whole is large (I'm thinking of industries like early aircraft or, more recently, the space industry). Do you think the government has a role in tragedy of the commons scenarios? (E.g., is it the governments role to price in externalities, to fund research in problems that are a large societal risk but small individual risk etc.?)

I do agree that a real problem in government is the "self-licking ice cream cone" phenomenon. Although, I think my preference is that citizens correct this at the voting booth. How do you think about the ability of people to make rational decisions in that regard? (I.e., if government isn't working to the people's liking and they have the power to change it, why isn't either a) the change happening or b) the citizenry leaving? c) are we failing because of our individual cognitive biases?)