I think we are using different definitions of "government." We mean very specifically a monopoly on force that sustains itself via involuntary taxation. Legitimized initiatory violence and taxation are what we are purposing be eliminated, not people working together collectively in society. This is the the wool over your eyes.
If we abolished the 'government' we could never have a single society the size of the United States
You go on making huge assumptions that completely miss the moral argument we actually give a damn about. Who cares about the size of society? And why would freedom result in a smaller society anyway? In fact the opposite is clearly the case as the internet and trade are making us global denizens as we speak.
The difference is that a government can be held accountable by engaged and informed citizens.
How engaged and informed does the average Chinese citizen have to be to stop government abuses of power? How informed and engaged did the people of Flint need to be to not be poisoned? Who will be held accountable for 18+ Trillion in U.S. debt and counting? Or all the blundering wars? No one. Ever. Contrariwise, how many businesses or citizens get away with such blatant abuses of power outside of government?
Nevermind that an informed and engaged citizenry is a pipe dream that imposes on everyone. I don't know about you but I've got enough on my plate as it is. I shouldn't be forced to waste my time and mental energies trying to influence rulers I never asked for. And I'm about 99% more engaged than anyone I know. Political apathy is completely logical from a results/time perspective as an individual. Ignoring this reality doesn't help or make the problem go away.
And from my perspective a lack of perfection isn't a reason to scrap an entire system.
For me to believe that getting rid of a government is a good idea, you would need to convince me that the replacement system would provide better versions of all the things the state already provides.
Ha. See, you are totally on board. Its just a matter of pragmatics. And I think this is most everyone honestly. Look, I'm not selling you anything. I'm telling you that if you want to impose on me with your idea of "society" you better be able to justify it. Just because I'm an anarchist (capitalism is a given in a free society) doesn't mean I want to flip a switch and pull the rug out from under society. I simply see these ideas as part of a long tradition of political philosophy that has been ongoing since at least the Greeks. There is no switch to flip. If we want less violent and corrupt systems governing society we have a long, hard slog to get there. Step number one for humanity is acknowledging there even is a problem with the idea of violently imposed states.
P.S. And one more thing: it isn't like there are not libraries full of ideas about every possible scenario you could envision in regards to how an anarcho-capitalistic society may function. Check out www.mises.org for a gateway into this subject. To me personally, the speculation of "how" is far less important than why. If you get the why, then you need to dig deeper on your own. You can only lead a horse to water....
RE: What's the best critique and argument against Anarcho-Capitalism?