I disagree completely with what you say here. You have not actually responded to my point at all. I explained why government will not function as intended, and you reply with (basically) "well, you just need to work on it". That's not an argument, and it doesn't negate the fact that I already laid out a reasoning as to why "working on it" doesn't work and cannot work.
I also dispute your attempt to cast a resistance to enforced power structures as "seeking a free ride". By claiming that, you assume (and this is reflected in what you write) that the opponents of governmental power believe that "the problem will solve itself", and you deem this lazy and dangerous. Okay. But that's not what I said. I don't think the problem will solve itself. I think the problem is human nature and it cannot be solved. What I said was that I will accept the problem of "Homo homini lupus", and I will do that because the alternative is worse.
So please stop with the false accusations of "free riding". I accept the risks, and expect no free lunch. I expect to have to fight, and I expect to have to do it alone, or beside those who stand with me of their own accord. I expect nothing from you, or anyone, that you're not willing to offer freely. The only thing I demand from others is that they don't try to claim power over me, because I resent such attempts. I have signed no social contract. In the face of governments who do try it, I exert all reasonable efforts (whether legal or otherwise) to withdraw myself from their control, and to keep my property out of their reach. I encourage everyone to do the same -- unless they prefer the true "free ride", which is the obedient life.
(I stress that a cheerful anarchism requires no bombs, nor even any kind of embittered resistance. Only a persistent disobedience, and the presence of mind to stay out of the lion's jaws.)
Finally, I must -- on ontological grounds -- dispute your statement that the saying "there is no such thing as society" is a lie. It's not a lie at all. Society is an epistemological concept; a pure abstraction. It does not actually exist. I can prove this logically, without any effort. The idea(!) of "society" has to be implemented by human beings -- individuals, who physically exist, and are therefore ontologically real. You can remove everything that constitutes the concept of "society", but this does not negate the existence of individual human beings. However. If you remove all individuals, there can be no "society". This is because individuals create the notion of society. One is a mere concept, the other is a concrete fact.
People who mis-reference the quote in question typically miss the point of it, which is that all policies which harm the rights and freedoms of the individual for the "good of society" are, by definition, sacrificing the interests of real, existing people for the sake of an abstract concept. That kind of ruthlessness (even with supposedly good intentions) brings us fairly close to a working definition of evil.
I have already argued why trying to do "good" through the exercise of power over others can lead to nothing good in the realm of economics. The above should suffice to outline why I believe it can do no good in any other realm, either.
