Some people think that governments hinder the natural development of our world, so it should be removed. To what extent do you agree or disagree to this statement

In our well-organised society, somepeople hardly consent to the recent governments and seek to a society in form of anarchy. It seems to me that I partly see eye-to-eye with this assertment, but an arnachical society is not the best solution to opt for. There is no doubt that governments may come up with flawed decisions, which is the central claim of anarchists. Firstly, they believe that power of states is a curtailment of the individual's autonomy. Naturally, human beings pursue their selfinterest and have rights to make their own decisions. Therefore, a set of austere rules and laws definitely wiolates it. Secondly, anarchism is needed for a society regardless of its inapproriation. Structure of states makes us readily accept to all the deeds to be legitimate, whereas there is a likelihood of abuse of law enforcement. It is evident that the occupacy movements, although, did not reach any target, it acted as a counterweight against the dominance of bank headers who resulted in the global financial crisis in 2008. It opens people's eyes that they should raise their voices confronting with the wrongdoings of morality. Nevertheless, governments are still a dynamic tool for the stagnant and chronic secure and peace. First and foremost, it forces everybody under the basic outcomes such as law enforcement, wealth distribution or business competitiveness. Without governments, the priviledged and elite rich in our complaints will not be tempered and dominant us, leading to a new era with novel governments. Moreover, anarchy is not an answer to the conundrum of such an irrepresentative democracy. To curb the power of states, devolution of referendrum is a less rigorous but effiecient way. In conclusion, individual's potential can be optimized and thrived if we do away with all politices and civil servants. However, it may lead to another problems.