I believe they do, but to discuss them we must expand our mutual definition
of "government". If we accept that government is a de facto monopoly on a
set of services, rather than an *involuntary* monopoly on goods and
services (enforced by the threat of deadly force, at present), we may make
progress. You speak of Government, and I wish to merely discuss government.

Consider a new definition of government. Let us define our new government
as, a set of services where the price of consensus is less than the price
of dissent. In fact, the sad reality is that's already true today, which
our "enemy" also knows. Therefore our goal must be to shift that balance in
the favor of dissent, without violating our ethical principles.

The fragility of the individual human is the weak link in the creation of
sustainable systems of governance, whether anarchy, democracy, oligarchy,
etc. It is not easy to fight against the biological imperative for
survival, so we must temper the amount to which we blame "weaker" minds for
succumbing to the incentives of corrupt systems.

Put simpler, how do we engineer a superior set of incentives such that
simpler minds' incentives are *aligned* with the incentives of the system's
superset?