Originally Posted by
HiTempguy1
Clearly you don't. Arguing that I don't see your point, then completely missing mine.
I never said we need no government. We need an absolute bare minimum. When the British had control of India, clearly that falls into a system of essentially "no government".
But that goes even further. India arguably should not have been amalgamated out of 30 countries. It is a really, really poor case study for your argument all things considered, because it is an incredibly unique situation.
In fact, why you'd base your argument on a "country" that is so young and unstable makes no sense. It's awful data in the first place.
My point still stands, as minimal government as possible. No western society currently practices that, in fact, every single example has steadily been increasing government control overall over the past 50 years.