Conza

There’s a few ways I could take this. Since I am unsure of your persuasion I’ll try cover all bases. It obviously depends on how you define it. The term is generally used synonymously and interchangeably with the state. Upon understanding the true nature of such an institution I’m not sure how someone who is intellectually honest, curious, open to reason, logically consistent and free from cognitive dissonance could ever support such an ‘entity’… unless they’re either ‘a joker and mentally unstable’, chimerical, or personally benefiting in some way.

For the laymen it is often best to avoid the boogeyman of “anarchy” which means “no rulers” although that does not mean “no rules”. There is nothing wrong with calling it ‘governance’ as long as it is voluntary. I support self-government, which is just one of the numerous labels that support the same idea of self-ownership and original appropriation. Other labels include: voluntarism, private law society, anarcho-capitalism, market anarchism, libertarianism, natural order etc.

To directly answer your question: governmentdoesn’t exist in objective physical reality.

               Mind blown? Carry on.

• “Government is an agent external to society, a “third party” with the power to coerce all other parties to relations in society into accepting its conceptions of those relations. … However, that the idea of Government exists is no proof of its empirical existence. … That societies may have some form of organization they call the “government” is no reason to conclude that those “governments” are empirical manifestations of the idea of Government. … A closer look at these earthly “governments” reveals that they do not get us out of anarchy at all. They simply replace one form of anarchy by another and hence do not give us real Government. Let’s see how this is so…”
            — Alfred G. Cuzan, Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?
  

• “[T]he crucial question is not, as so many believe, whether property rights should be private or governmental, but rather whether the necessarily ‘private’ owners are legitimate owners or criminals. For ultimately, there is no entity called ‘government’; there are only people forming themselves into groups called ‘governments’ and acting in a ‘governmental’ manner. All property is therefore always ‘private’; the only and critical question is whether it should reside in the hands of criminals or of the proper and legitimate owners.”
            — Murray N. Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 9.

• “There is no existing entity called ‘society’; there are only interacting individuals. To say that ‘society’ should own land or any other property in common, then, must mean that a group of oligarchs — in practice, government bureaucrats — should own the property, and at the expense of expropriating the creator or the homesteader who had originally brought this product into existence.”
            — Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty

Well where does that leave one then? We always live in a state of anarchy. The real question is what kind of anarchy we live under, market anarchy or non-market (political) anarchy. It is either voluntary or aggressive interpersonal relations. Only the former is justifiable.