Less may be fine to a point, but exponentially less is demonstrably bad. I used to feel the same way about the default should be no govt until I started lookin

Less may be fine to a point, but exponentially less is demonstrably bad. I used to feel the same way about the default should be no govt until I started looking at the system dynamics. I notice you provide no example of a highly advanced society over 100 million people with a massively lightweight government. As we even approach that scale, the data show that actually MORE govt is better, e.g., the numerous studies showing both better wealth & resources distribution and unrivaled overall happiness in the Nordic countries more govt, better distributed. One huge problem with any gathering of people is that some will always try to arrogate to themselves the control over all the resources - without a collective government of some kind, you wind up with warlords in political space or oligarchs in the economic space, and the resources and freedom are all consumed by the few... As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others.". No govt or even tiny govt isn't a valid option. If it was, we'd see libertarian paradises arising the various failed states around the globe. With not a lot of funds, like minded no-govt types could just go and setup to do anything they want where there is a literal absence of govt. But it turns out that you can't get anything done, literally, when there's no damn roads, communication, laws, or other infrastructure...