Defend the point of view that government is not necessary. Support your statement with specific reasons.

(GIVING !75! POINTS TO WHO ANSWERS!!!) pls help mee

Government is predicated upon the initiation of force. For example, if you were to stop paying your taxes, you would get a letter from the IRS saying you owe such and such amount. They would keep sending you these letters for a while, but eventually they would send a group of men with badges and guns to throw you in a cage for not giving this institution YOUR money.  

Courts are often crowded because of overcriminalization (prosecuting individuals for victimless crimes) and there is no price associated with criminal cases. Cases often get plea bargained because prosecutors have an incentive to have high conviction rates, not to serve their clients since they are paid by the state. This often means that crimes that are easier to prosecute get more attention.

Also you have the current problem where people sue each other willy nilly. This problem could be solved by simply requiring the person who brings suit to pay for the defendant's legal expenses if the defendant is proven innocent of any wrongdoing.

Also the victim of a crime in our current system gets screwed twice. Once by the offender who perpetrated the crime, then again by the state, which confiscates his wealth in order to pay for the prosecution and housing of the criminal. Historically private law was centered around compensating the victim financially.

In absence of a state professional judges would emerge that would make decisions based on a commonly established practices which could be codified into a law book. This would be analogous to how dictionaries codify definitions for words, you don’t need a central body to come up with new words and definitions, language emerges spontaneously. So too, law would be established in this way and in fact this is what English common law is based on, communal law that was established and accepted by the community. Similarly customs would emerge for the amount of times you can appeal, based on the crime committed.

Private law would solve many of the above problems listed. It would eliminate overcriminalization (it would be unlikely that someone would bring suit against someone for using drugs), it would focus on restitution and lawyers would be working for the victims instead of simply working for a high conviction rate.

freeborn women in ancient rome were citizens (cives), but could not vote or hold political office. because of their limited public role, women are named less frequently than men by roman historians. but while roman women held no direct political power, those from wealthy or powerful families could and did exert influence through private negotiations. exceptional women who left an undeniable mark on history range from lucretia and claudia quinta, whose stories took on mythic significance; fierce republican-era women such as cornelia, mother of the gracchi, and fulvia, who commanded an army and issued coins bearing her image; women of the julio-claudian dynasty, most prominently livia (58 bc-ad 29), who contributed to the formation of imperial mores; and the empress helena (c.250–330 ad), a driving force in promoting christianity.

women in the ancient greek world had few rights in comparison to male citizens. unable to vote, own land, or inherit, a woman’s place was in the home and her purpose in life was the rearing of children. this, though, is a general description, and when considering the role of women in ancient greece one should remember that information regarding specific city-states is often lacking, is almost always from male authors, and only in athens can their status and role be described in any great detail. neither are we sure of the practical and everyday application of the rules and laws that have survived from antiquity. we do know that spartan women were treated somewhat differently than in other states. for example, they had to do physical training like men, were permitted to own land, and could drink wine.

no one should discriminated against because he or she is not from a minority group