And it got even better when people could elect and somewhat control the state.
I find myself wondering what exactly differentiates a "government" from a "family council" or "tribal leadership" or whatever other phrase you want to use to describe an "authority-wielding-body with a monopoly on force."
I think "governments" are as old as people, and probably older. Many social animals have leaders who dominate the rest of the herd.
My feeling is that governments have always been here, they've just gotten bigger and maybe a little more sinister.
and from the wikipedia:
"British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size."
that brings us to possible effect of social networks (which either help to overcome brain size limitation of social group size or help that brain function to atrophy - the exact effect on the brain is yet to be determined) on the government.
As a member of a bellicose family, I can assure you that family members (often older and respected by both sides) acting as mediators are pretty common :)
It is well attested that several North, Meso- and South American cultures were growing maize well before the arrival of the Europeans.
It's necessary for government (more specifically, at least for one context, a definition of sovereignty is a monopoly on violence and justice).
But the definition is much more than that. It's also collective decision-making. I don't follow the law - even ones I disagree with - and pay my taxes because I'm coerced, but because I believe very strongly in the rule of law, I respect the decisions of my fellow citizens - even ones I disagree with, and I'm proud to participate.
I certainly was. My neighbors and I elected someone to represent us on the matter, there was a public debate about the law before it was passed and I told my representative how I wanted them to vote, and our representative's job is up for review in a year.