if people do not want to cooperate the state has nothing to do with it.

You should re-read what you just said in haste. The State is a third party in an otherwise harmonious relationship.

harmonious relationship between what?

do you even know why governments were established?

To perpetuate exploitative relationships built on dominance and slavery.

ahahahahaha

funny

but no

governments were designed to defend the people from foreigners

Were they? At which level of development? For that to be true, then people couldn't defend themselves without government, which is false.

I am speaking of ancient times.

the people could not organize properly against a raider party

the people were not able to defend themselves

I have no idea what you are talking about.

you don't seem to understand

others would organize raiding partys to steal from other smaller villagers

normally food or women

What culture are you talking about?

ancient african.

Pre Mesopotamian era

Let's go with your 'raiders' example. Didn't that 'work'?

didn't what work?

the raiding partys?

I mean, if raiding didn't work, why make a response to them?

raiding did work.

thats why villages combined with eachother

and developed governments

and then armys

to defend from raiders

Hmmm, this makes sense actually.

Government is for defence.

yes

and helping the people

Anarchy is for offence.

offence of what?

Class and private property is not helpful. It is domineering.

Offence of the people.

helping the people, should be dictated by the people.

By they can't. The only thing people can dictate is themselves.

thats not my point

the people should decide what the government helps them in.