Sorry, but the belief that it is possible to get rid of governments, and that society will be better without them, is religion.
And while there is not much historical evidence suggesting a government-less society would or would not function due to absence of data,...
I think you can safely assume the planet functioned perfectly fine billions of years without having a government.
Yes, if there are less than a few thousand people scattered through all corners of the earth, then probably there was NO government and no need for a government; however, when people started to live in community and to share resources and resources become limited, then the more need there is for a government.
Or the more likely a bully stands up because he has more power and strength than others so he can demand others to work for him.
Because others thought they were fed by him and were scared they were starting to worship him, a government was born.
If that's your understanding of what is government, then you have probably been watching too much Fox "news"
1. I don't watch television (anymore)
2. I never watched fox, I live in europe.
3. Fox is just as bad as almost any other network.
Sorry to oversimplify and to assume regarding your media viewing preferences (and to get it wrong), but to me it did sound as if you had been attempting to oversimplify the role of government into narrow sets of coercion and lack of voluntary participation - which are the same kinds of diversionary talking points that they engage in on Fox "news."
If you have more subtle and nuanced views regarding the various aspects of the role of government, then you had NOT been showing such with your apparent exaggerated descriptors of government as a bunch of thugs.
In that regard, my point was that you may NOT need government if there are NOT very many people in the world or if you do NOT have to share resources, but as soon as you begin to have the development of large populations and when you need to share resources and the more you have relationships beyond the family the more that there are going to be developments of institutions that are government-like.. whether you call them government or if you call them something else...
Surely, it is possible that we are debating over semantics.. rather than practicality.
My suggestion is that modern societies cannot just go from their current state of complex and multitude of government to a state of NO government without various transitional plans and a large number of societal changes.. and really it seems to be pie in the sky to be describing such a society, because historically government like institutions exist in almost all societies with a large number of people beyond one large family.
Otherwise, if we were to attempt to transform various current societal set-ups into government-less states, then a lot of people with a variety of legitimate stakes in the current system are gonna get screwed, so if you are describing some pie in the sky "no government" society, then that description, in my thinking, is much too vague and does NOT really address how we would get from the present state of affairs to that future supposedly ideologically preferred state of affairs without providing some details about what is gonna look like and how do we get there and also need for a lot of give and take from a lot of different circles in order to have such transformations from the status quo.
