Who punishes the dysfunctional and how in a non-governmental system? What is a government other than an organization with origins in an old agreement among a people, handed down through the years to new electees, though the current parties were not party to the original agreement (but how do you pass it on and change it with each generation? Oh, that's right, elections)? Also, remember, government is not a mean-looking The Man or The Woman in a suit. It's made up of people. Some of whom are idiots. I have been part of The Government as an intern at the Smithsonian (which is considered part of the government). So has my father, in a different job in a different part of the government. My mother still is, in yet another different job in yet another different part of the government. Which part of the government do you blame? Congress? The Supreme Court ? The executive branch? Which part of the executive branch? Talking about 'Government' as a monolith will get any discussion nowhere.
First of all, you haven't answered my previous question about what rights you had in mind when you reacted the first time. Second: a government is indeed an organisation with origins in an old agreement, handed down through the years. And that is exactly the problem. You are born into a system of rules and obligations, along with rights, but you had absolutely no say in them. You are bound by rules imposed upon you without your consent.
Indeed, government is a collection of people, some of which are idiots. And believing it's morally right to have idiots writing lines on a piece of paper and saying 'now you have to obey what we've just written down on this piece of paper, or else we'll throw you in a cage' is exactly the problem I have with Government.
I'm not sorry, because government IS a monolith. Ever tried to fix things through the judicial or legislative system? Yeah, in the past it might have worked a bit but only because people realized at a certain dim level that an imposed rule was not helping them and they demanded to have it changed. Which is still very much like the slave asking his master to whip him a little less often. No one has the right to imprison another human being; no one has the right to rob, steal or kill. So why is it that these things change when it's government who's doing these exact same things all of a sudden?
That's the point I'm trying to make: just because someone says 'this rule HAS to be obeyed' and the fact that everyone believes this outright lie doesn't make it so. If I wrote down on a piece of paper 'you have to wear a yellow paper hat every other day, otherwise you'll be locked up for a year' you'd think I'd be insane, and rightly so.
So why do we magically believe in the sanity of rules when government makes them? Because we've 'agreed' to be ruled? I haven't. Show me where it says any of us have agreed to be ruled (if, of course, you WANT to be ruled, I have nothing to say. Your life, your choice.) But that doesn't change the fact that the whole idea of government, in which a small group of people can boss other people around and call it a good thing is a logical fallacy. Thirdly: the punishing of the dysfunctional. This is, indeed, a tricky one. First off: ask the question why are people dysfunctional? Is it something they've picked up from birth? An accident? Drugs? And if so, what were the cause which led them to a certain act of dysfunctionality? As a family/neighborhood/town you CAN get together and decide how you can deal with dysfunctional individuals. There's mediators galore but there's no one from stopping you to ask an impartial third person to review a certain case. You can be governed, no problem. But it should be consentual which means you enter such a system of rules by your own free will and you must be able to leave again if the rules are changed on an almost daily basis (as is the case nowadays). I think the idea of banishment (temporarily or permanent) has much more merits than imprisonment. Btw, if elections would solve anything, it would either be outlawed or things would have changed for the better already. Since they haven't, I can confidently state that looking for the solution coming from other people isn't going to work. Which takes us right back at the main problem: believing someone else has the right to rule you. You are not a slave who needs the master's permission to do something YOU know to be right. If what you do harms no one or demolishes the natural resources around you, who has the right to tell you you can't do them?
There's examples of working non-governmental societies all throughout the world as well as throughout history. You break the one rule (which is when you've harmed someone) and you will have to take responsability for your actions. Your neighbours have the obligation to call you out if you're messing things up. because they have a responsability too: not to let someone mess up things in such a way that it harm others. As far as your last remark: I don't really blame a specific part of government, I'm looking people who think there should BE such a thing as government in the first place.