In short, they dodged the obvious proofs that the concept of "government" is inherently bogus, and went into claims about how it's necessary to have some "government." Sorry, but that is not a logical response. If I pointed out that Santa Claus doesn't have time to go to every kid's house on Christmas Eve, that the laws of physics don't allow reindeer to fly, that Santa can't physical fit through chimneys (for those who still have them), that a bag that size couldn't hold a billion toys, and so on, would a rational rebuttal be, "But we need Santa Claus to exist, because otherwise Christmas won't work!"?
And a "limited Santa" position isn't any more sane. "Okay, we don't want Santa to be excessively involved, but for those kids whose parents can't afford gifts, we need a minimal amount of Santa involvement." Well, too bad. Because Santa doesn't exist. And neither does "government." It doesn't matter how much you "need" them. It doesn't matter what would happen without them. They DON'T FREAKING EXIST!
"Government" is the entity imagined to have the right (not just the ability) to rule others. Trouble is, no one can have such a right, because no one can delegate such a right. This is true whether someone is claiming the absolute, unlimited right to rule, or some version of "tyranny lite," as the Constitution pretended to create. No one can have a moral obligation to obey politician scribbles (their so-called "laws") when they conflict with one's own moral conscience.
There is no right to rule, and no obligation to obey, which means there is no "authority," which means that "government" does not exist. Yes, the gang of thieving, lying, murderous control-freak scumbags exists, as do their unthinking mercenaries, and the damage they cause is very real. But the claimed legitimacy of their forcibly-imposed "legislative" master plan is not real. And even if they only initiated the types of aggressive violence described in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (e.g., limited "taxation" and "regulation"), it would still be utterly and completely illegitimate (though a lot less destructive). The logic of my two prior messages applies just as much to "limited government" as it does to totalitarianism. No one has the right to rob me, even if they only steal a little, and only in certain, relatively unobtrusive ways, and even if they say it's necessary, or for my own good.
People try to cling to the cult superstition of "government" because it makes them feel good, like believing in Santa. They want to think that, if they're good, some all-knowing, all-powerful entity will make sure they're protected. Never mind that "government" is always more of an aggressor than a protector. I can't count how many people have argued to me, "Well, what we have NOW is nasty, destructive and illegitimate, but we really need a good 'government,' or there would be chaos!"
You mean things like $2,000,000,000,000 a year being extorted every year from people who earned it? Oh, wait, that chaos is because of "government." You mean like 200,000,000 people being murdered in one century? Oh, wait, that happened because of "government." You mean like millions of non-violent people being forcibly kidnapped, dragged away from their friends and family, and put in cages? Oh, wait, that happened because of "government." You mean like an entire economy destroyed by people counterfeiting the currency into worthlessness, and engaging in massive banking fraud? Oh, wait, that happened because of "government." You mean like constant violent conflict on a massive scale? Oh, wait, that happens because of "government." You mean like people being terrorized, tortured, harassed and assaulted? Oh, wait, that happens because of "government."
How many thousands of years more does the myth of "government" have to result in suffering, injustice, death and destruction, before people will give up the insane notion that we need "government" to protect us from suffering, injustice, death and destruction?
There is a simple, logical reason why "government" is always destructive. It's not because of bad luck, or because we weren't vigilant enough. It's because, by its very nature, the only thing "authority" can ever do, and will ever do, is add immoral violence into society. That is not just a prediction; it is a logically provable reality.
There are two basic categories of force: aggressive force, where someone uses violence or the threat of violence to rob, assault, or murder another; and defensive force, where someone uses threats or physical force to try to stop an act of aggressive force. Most people acknowledge that aggressive force is immoral, and defensive force is moral. Attacking someone is bad; protecting someone is good. Starting a fight is bad; defending yourself is good. (I think most five-year-olds grasp this ... it's just the adults who believe in "government" who have problems with it.)
Defensive force is inherently legitimate. Each of us has a right to defend ourselves, or others, against aggressors. We don't need any official office, any badge, any special "authority," or any "law" to make defensive force justified. The only kind of force that needs special permission, that needs "legislation" or other pseudo-religious political cult rituals to legitimize it, is aggressive violence--force that is not inherently righteous. If the politician, or the cop, has a right to use force in a situation that you do not, then he has the right to initiate force. He has the right to attack someone, to start a fight, to commit acts of aggression. Because you don't need a badge, or a "law," to have the right to use inherently justified force. You only need them if you want to attack someone.
In other words, all "government" ever does, all it can do, is to add immoral violence into society. So, is that what society needs more of? Is that what we need in order to be civilized and peaceful? More unjustified violence? "There would be chaos and mayhem if we didn't add more immoral violence into society!" Is that really what you want to be arguing?
If someone, or some organization, only used inherently justified, defensive force, they simply wouldn't fit the definition of "government." A "government" which can only do what every other individual has the right to do on his own, has no "authority," has no right to rule, cannot enact and enforce any "laws," and does not in any way constitute "government." It can be a militia, it can be a private security company, it can be a concerned individual, but it cannot be "government." Because of what the word means, there cannot be a purely defensive "government," which only protects rights.
Here is my last "bleeding obvious" question for this series:
If every individual has the right to use defensive, inherently justified force to protect the innocent, and "government" has the right to use force in some cases where most individuals do not, what kind of extra force does "government" add to society? Here are your choices:
1) It adds GOOD force, because when otherwise immoral violence is "legalized," it becomes good.
2) It can only add BAD force, because any violence that is not inherently good--any force beyond the defensive, inherently justified force that every individual has the right to use-- must be inherently bad.
So which is it? Once again, you may not like your choices, but these are still your only logical choices:
a) Civilization requires an organization that does nothing but add more immoral violence into society.
b) Immoral violence is ... um ... immoral. We can't possibly need, and shouldn't have, any organization that only adds more immoral violence into society.