No, you've got that backwards. In a functioning democracy respecting the rule of law, the government with its laws and regulation are the school teachers who are putting the bullies into detention.

Based on what argument?

Just writing your opinion down doesn’t seem relevant to real life government organization.

I don’t see how there could be “school teachers” above the majority of congressman or regulatory decision makers. The very existence of pork filled bills thousands of pages long and byzantine regulations suggest that couldn’t possibly be true.

If your government is corrupt then it doesn't make sense to say that the concept of having a government is dead and that corporations are the solution.

How does this relate to the prior comment?

It relates to it because you chose an example specific to US government which we all know is not a good example.

How do you know it’s not applicable elsewhere?

e.g. Plenty of countries have huge bills that no one fully reads and huge numbers of regulations.

There will always be something to complain.

People are also sick and tired of rules in the AppStore. Or the fact that when their Apple/Google/whatever account is unilaterally blocked they have no recourse. At least with a government there are some checks and balances.

Yes, some governments are more trustworthy than others. Doesn't mean the concept is bad.

Can you write down the actual argument?

Repeating your opinion isn’t going to lead to any productive discussion.

Does every democracy have that problem with bills? I thought it was mostly a US issue.

Frequently, the bullies are on the student council, and because they get more face time with the administration and are seen as part of the establishment by the same, admins are reluctant to do more than a slap of the hand, but appearances must be kept up with.

Most people want to live in a society that maximizes positive freedom, or some balance of freedom and prosperity. In those societies, it is considered legitimate for the government to use force to stop people whose actions prevent members of society from having positive freedom/prosperity.

Of course that is a very simplified description. In practice, most societies promote a balance between positive and negative freedom, recognize some limits on the government's ability to use force, recognize some degree to which people can choose to act in ways that don't promote positive freedom/prosperity, etc.