> It is not the case that a government wields absolute power. I don't believe it's the case that there is no way to keep a government in check.

Tell that to the people of every tyrannical regime in the history of mankind. Perhaps they were just doing it wrong?

> Also, I don't think "someone else [having] the right to rule [us]" is a correct characterization of functioning democratic governance (even in a representative democracy).

How would you characterize it then?

> You have shown neither that the above is sound reasoning, nor that other frameworks are not.

What reasoning and "other frameworks" might you be referring to?

> And if 100 people decide I don't have a right to a spleen in a context without government, how does that go any better?

How is that relevant to what I said?

> But my point was deeper. One of the consequences of prohibition (of alcohol or drugs) was to remove government as a means of settling disputes for a group of people handling relatively large sums of money.

Why not say something like that then? :p Disregarding whether you've described a real problem, you seem to be suggesting that a government's decision caused a big problem, and therefore, government is.. good?

> Yes, precisely. And much like any technology it can be misused, poorly designed, poorly configured; and this can lead to frustration or harm.

This is just way out there.. :p But tell me, how exactly is government a "technology", how should it be "used", and why didn't we do so? :P

> Once again, that's not true. In a functioning democracy, governments are responsible to the people lest the groups with power lose it.

Well, "luckily" the real power is not with rank-and-file politicians that indeed do come and go: http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.fi/2014/02/the-dollar-and-d...

> In any system, the possibility of revolution serves as a partial check.

Again, I'd point to every single tyrannical regime ever. That "partial check" doesn't seem to be working too well.

Look, ultimately it's about how much abuse the general populace is willing to take.. before it's too late to do anything (see: North-Korea, USSR, etc).

Once there's a small group of "people" wielding power over everyone else, the people are guaranteed to end up suffering sooner or later. The ruling class keeps expanding and looting everyone else harder and harder, until you're.. say, in the US in 2014.

The US provides a prime example of what follows from a minimal, "Constitutional" government.

> Governments are also responsible to other governments, in some extreme situations.

Sooo.. War, or something? Well, maybe ordinary Canadians will rescue ordinary Americans from their government? :p "We must give America the blessing of Democracy! Now go forth and kill or be killed!" --> "Sir! Yes! Sir!"

> I'm not sure where you derive this ranking in which government is highest, or why only lower powers can be kept in check.

"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao.

I'm sure you know how it works.

> Not always; when it's not, things suck even more; see, for instance, many parts of Somalia.

Again, it's all about the attitude of the general populace. If people accept that there's a ruling class bossing them around - even if it's a small one - it will grow and gain more and more power. The only limit to a government's growth is the attitude of its subjects.

The government fosters dependence on itself, through various social programs, health care, pensions and so on. Through the education system, the government conditions people into thinking it's absolutely necessary and beneficial, and through controlling the money supply, the government loosens the limits on how much money it can spend.

And here we are. Look at what the US has become. Note how the whole Western world's economies are going down the toilet too, and note how mass surveillance is spreading everywhere.

> Revolution is horrible, yes.

Yeah, and the thing is, without governments, there would be no revolutions! It's like, countless deaths could be avoided!

> I don't think "group of sociopaths in power hurting everyone" is a legitimate description of all government.

Would you settle for "looting everyone" then? That much is accurate at least.