So what, exactly, does "government" add to society? What can it add? If we start with lots and lots of people, living on a big piece of dirt, what does "government" have to contribute to the equation? Well, it contributes no talent or skill, no knowledge or ingenuity--things which come only from individual human beings. "Government" is merely an organization of people, imagined to have the right to rule everyone else. It can't have any abilities or productivity to offer that could not already be found in the people of whom it consists. Calling a group of people something different (i.e., "government") obviously can't add any talents or qualities that the people in the group didn't already possess.
Every "law" and "program" administered by "government" is administered by people. Since organization, cooperation, ingenuity and creativity are all possible without "government"--since those all come from people--how could we possibly need "government" for anything? Since it's just a group of people, how could there be anything which people could do as "government," which those same people, with all the same talents and know-how, could not do without it?
There is one thing, and only one thing, that "government" adds to society: immoral violence. Because people imagine it to have the right to rule, and the right to use force in situations where you and I would have no such right, all it does is add unjust violence to society. (And how many people, looking around, say, "Ya know, what this country needs is more unjust violence!")
Yes, some things are more convenient if you are allowed to ignore morality. For example, a supermarket would have an easier time if it could coerce its customers to show up and pay whatever the store wants them to pay, instead of having to compete for voluntary customers. (The result, of course, would be really expensive, lousy products and services--which is what "government" specializes in.) It's easier to get your way if you have the right to send men with guns to make everyone else behave the way you want. But is that adding something to society, or taking something away?
Every time someone initiates force against someone else, whether they do it on their own or in the name of "government," they are subtracting something from society. They are removing options and choices from people who should be free. They are limiting what people can do, what they can create, and what they can accomplish.
We can easily see this with a common crook. The guy who steals the old lady's purse adds nothing of value to society, and deprives the lady of all the possibilities of what she could have done with that money. In the case of a kidnapper or a murderer, the example is even more significant: to steal some or all of a person's life is to deprive not only that person, but the rest of the world, of whatever that person could have created or produced. whether in terms of physical wealth, emotional support, or anything else.
The same is true of the state. Every "law" is a threat of violence, and the vast majority of them target people who have committed no force or fraud. As a result, the vast majority of "laws" do nothing but limit what people can accomplish and remove options and choices. How can drastically limiting possibilities, with the use of force, contribute to society?
(Before you try to use the example of police stopping a murderer, think carefully. Defensive force is justified without any "law" or special "authority," so the protection of the innocent requires no "government." What makes them "police" is that people imagine them to have the right to use violence in situations where "normal" people don't. What "law enforcement" adds to society is, therefore, not safety, but robbery, assault, kidnapping and murder, all done in the name of the "law." In other words, by definition "government" does not add any right or ability to protect rights--which the people already have without it; it adds only the ability to violate rights.)
To put it bluntly, the reason statists really want "government" is because they aren't content to allow people to solve problems through voluntary interaction and cooperation; they want to force everyone to do things their way. If the statists are scared of foreign invaders, they want to force everyone else to pay for an army (even those who don't think it's necessary, or who morally oppose it). If statists think the poor might go hungry, they want to force everyone to be "charitable." If they are concerned about kids not being educated, they want to force everyone to pay for schools, whether the people want them or not.
"Government" is always a cop-out, advocated by people who don't want to let people be free, but want to coerce them into making the "right" choices and funding the "right" things. Then, not surprisingly, it turns into a giant political free-for-all, fighting over the question of who gets to decide what everyone else should pay for and how everyone else should behave. An honest statist would have to sum up his position thusly: "We need government because otherwise some people wouldn't support what I want them to support, and wouldn't make the choices I want them to make." That is the only reason anyone ever advocates "government," and that's why the only thing that "government" "adds" to society is limited choices, fewer possibilities, and lots of unjust violence.
Allow me to be blunt to the point of rudeness: It's true that, if the whole world isn't forced to do things the way you think it should, you might not always get your way. But don't pretend you have some noble, altruistic motive for wanting "government." You want it so it can do what you know that you have no right to do: force all your neighbors to conform to your beliefs and ideas. Don't pretend you want "government" to "protect" people, or to contribute something to society that free people couldn't create--you want it because you want control over everyone and everything else; you want to force your ideas and "solutions" upon everyone else. (The sad irony is, once the "government" beast is in place, you learn that it doesn't care what you think, and it starts controlling you.)
I hate to break it to you, but the rest of the world has no obligation to think what you think, or to fund your ideas (whether they're brilliant or stupid), or to bow to your will. You own yourself, but you don't own anyone else. If that's not enough for you, go jump in a lake. Stop advocating violence in the name of humanity, and pretending it's necessary.