[Agamemnon]

I`m not promising anything, I`m not a liberal

Probably a good thing, anarchy is kind of hard to guarentee I guess.

What am I talking about is a society freed from an element that does not belong there.

Whatever. Government is the end result of humanity's natural desire to organize. Every single 'civilization' on this planet has had some sort of group organization structure. Whether its hunter/gatherer or hyper-urban, governing structures existed.

Please point out an example of a society absent of organization.

Do you have any proof that governments and their goals are legitimate and desirable?
If you do, do you have further proof that the means governments employ are legitimate?
And if you do, do you have any proof that those means actually lead to their goals?

Nope. All I have is proof that when the lights go out, rioting and looting start. Again, we have an institution that is doing some things right and some things wrong. Reform is a great way to fix those that are wrong.

What replaces government? A voluntary existance, where you do what you feel like, when you feel like it? Relying on the charity of your fellow man, with no guarentees for food, clothing, shelter. If your answer to solving these needs is purely based on neighbourly handouts, I'd suggest that's a dicey 'social system'.

I'd love for you to flesh out what the govt.less society looks like, it sounds fascinating (and dangerous).

PS and opinions that "it wont work without the government" are either uninformed or ignorant.

Well, given the complete lack of evidence to support the contrary, it turns out 'uninformed or ignorant', in your words, is right.

You've pointed out no example where a lack of government existed, or is better. You're finding certain, individual things that the government is basically innefficient on distributing, and declaring that it would be better if we all just went our own ways.

Whats the deal with describing the viewpoint that's not yours as 'uninformed or ignorant'? What are your qualifications to judge this debate? You'd better be a U of C PoliSci or Philosophy prof. at the least to be tossing that one out there, otherwise it's a pretty poor debating tactic and really stupid and rude. Of course, if you think of yourself as intellectually superior, then I guess I understand why you'd say that.

"I declare that anyone believing in your point of view to be an idiot". Might not be true, but apparently we're allowed to go ahead and judge, so I'll toss that out.