I addressed your question sufficiently, so accordingly, probably, you should respond to my various points if you have anything substantive to add in this direction.. .
But you didn't answer it.
In this thread, you've made some statements which show you don't really have a grasp of some basics--things like equating government with community, "will of the people", etc, and you've brushed aside some arguments with Fox News references.
So I'm merely asking to start a civil dialogue with you. I promise to stay polite. Please respond:
What is your definition of "government"?
My definition can be stated in a sentence. How about you?
We seem to be in disagreement regarding the responsiveness of my previous responses, so it seems to be a big waste of time to engage in further exchange regarding these matters. I believe that I have already sufficiently stated my position and that was merely challenging the statements of others regarding their description of no need for taxes and that government services do NOT serve useful societal purposes in light of how much they cost.
In fact one of the most efficient and effective government services in the world is the social security system that was established in the US of A in the 1930s. Yet, nonetheless, there is NO burden on me to back up the various multitude of status quo system, even though I have a large number of gripes regarding them. In essence, so far, I have NOT made any real and/or significant claims regarding the dismantling of such systems in large ways, as was the logical outgrowth of the original statement made by Rpietila (that I have repeated several times to be the origination of this line of discussion).