Objectively, the world is composed of both good and evil people, so logically we don’t need a government nor should we have one.
That’s faulty logic though. The truth lies somewhere between “too beatific to need” and “too diabolical to allow.”
The logic is sound. Here's how it works:
It is therefore only logical to conclude, as I did originally, that we do not need nor should we have a government.
Yeah, it’s a fine line to walk, make no mistake, but supporting at least a night watchman state is essential to being good.
The state, by its very definition, involves doing evil. Even if we disregard that, the fact remains that a limited government is impossible. It has been tried and it has failed, most notably in the US.
Supporting anarchy is supporting the ability of evil people preying on good.
Let's say for a moment that this is true. How is that any different from what exists at present? Governments around the world systematically perpetuate evil on a greater scale than mere individuals acting alone. If evil people preying on the good is the natural order of things, then having a state is merely a way to protect such evil. Police brutality (a.k.a keeping the peace), wars of aggression (a.k.a foreign interventions), rape factories (a.k.a prisons), invasions of privacy (a.k.a government surveillance programs), etc. are all examples of the state finding ways to make evil appear respectable and above reproach. Removing this protection racket will enable true justice to flourish and would lead to less evil in the world, not more.
The pipe dream of this theoretical anarchic paradise where everyone is free to pursue their dreams and butterflies land near, but not on, you because they didn’t obtain your consent is a massive lie foisted upon you by intellectuals who, like most modern proponents of anarchy, have never experienced it in action.
Disregarding your flippant tone and obvious fallacious logic, how is it a lie? Assertions do not an argument make. I would argue, as others have before me, that anarchy is the natural state of being and we experience it every day. When you decide what clothes to wear, what food to eat, what book to read, which people to be friends with, who you marry, how many children you have, and so on, you are doing so without being ordered by the state. The government may regulate some or all of these things depending on where in the world you reside, but that is beside the point. Each individual is free to make many choices without requiring permission from anyone else to do so. The only time you are forced to beg in order to do something that would come naturally is when the state arbitrarily enacts a law demanding the formation of a master-slave relationship. If, however, you don't accept this as sufficient proof of practical anarchy, here are some historical examples of societies that resembled anarchist theory:
In the absence of manmade laws, people will revert to the Law of Nature: the strong prey on the weak.
Another assertion, reeking of unsubstantiated Hobbesianism. Also a straw man, as anarchist theory does not say there will be an absence of rules, only an absence of rulers. You also completely disregard all the work done by natural law theorists.
Historians have a name for this. It’s not your vaunted “anarchy,” though it is exactly the same, it’s barbarism. The purpose of any moral government is to stop barbarism and allow its people to rise above it.
Moral government is an oxymoron, such a thing is simply not possible. Government is barbarism: It does not "allow" people to rise above it, it perpetuates it, and continues to do so by indoctrinating everyone to believe it is the natural order of things, inventing clever euphemisms to cloak its evil.