I understand you're frustrated, but I think we're talking past each other. You're right that I should clarify my position. When I distinguish between governance and nation-states, I mean that organizing society and providing services doesn't require the specific form of centralized, territorial monopoly on violence that modern states represent.

There are examples throughout history of societies organizing through voluntary associations, mutual aid networks, and decentralized coordination - from indigenous governance systems to modern examples like how communities self-organize after disasters.

You asked me to show how government as a concept is inherently problematic. My point is simpler: the current US system simultaneously funds genuine public goods AND actively harmful policies (military interventions, mass incarceration, etc.). The "all or nothing" framing - that we must accept the whole package or have chaos - seems like a false choice.

My examples of Native Americans and Palestinians weren't cherry-picking bad outcomes - they illustrate systematic patterns of how states expand and maintain power. These aren't unfortunate side effects but core features of how territorial states operate.

I'm genuinely curious about your view: do you think there are any legitimate limits to what a government can do in the name of providing stability and services? Or is any critique of fundamental structures just "extraordinary claims"?