"Government is the word for the things we do together." I have read this sentiment many places, and heard it espoused many times, but it is so vague that it becomes meaningless. It's like saying, "socialism means sharing." It completely ignores the conflict between consent and coercion. People organize many things voluntarily, and the market of voluntary associations and exchanges is a complex and wonderful thing. It encompasses production, trade, gifts, charity, cooperatives, and more. That is society. Government is a group of people who, instead of operating by offer and acceptance, make demands with which people comply under threat and duress. Conflating the two is absurd.
The libertarian or market anarchist is often caricatured as believing everyone is an island, and rejecting civil society altogether. "You don't like government? But what about the roads, schools, social security, and health care? Think of the children! Why don't you want to pay your fair share and contribute to society?" And so on, ad nauseam. Never mind the mountains of examples that can be provided showing voluntary means of handling these matters, theoretically, historically, or even concurrently with government today. Never mind that the foundational argument is for voluntary association as our primary measure. No, rejection of government means rejection of society, because people believe "Government is the word for the things we do together."
Pleas read my previous post for another bad definition of government and further examination of political power. Comments are welcome below, because I know for many readers these ideas are quite bizarre and unfamiliar. They were for me once, too. I, too, was a flag-waving, ballot-casting, troop-supporting, "respect the office even if you reject its occupant" patriot. I am here philosophically rather than there because I noticed some oddities and began to inquire. Reason led me away from what I had been taught.
Related posts:
Government Defined
The Real Church and State Divide
What if No One is In Charge?
Post Hoc Econ
Virtue, Vice, and Violence