Freedom of folly?

Would humans be alright if we did not have government control like we do today? According to Sameer Parekh in Josh McHugh's essay "Politics For The Really Cool" we would be better off. He thinks the power should be in the people's hands. "There would still be a government, but it would not be the expensive welfare state we have today" (McHugh 436). Could humans actually pull it off peacefully though?

Man-kind has always tried to establish rules, boundaries, laws, some sort of order at least. We thrive on it. Some people are followers and some people are leaders. So it makes sense that we have established a government that is supposed to help us help ourselves. This sounds great right? But sometimes the government can become too involved and focuses more on the agenda of those in office then those that put them in office. This is where politics go bad...

I tend to be in the middle of the spectrum of anarchy and complete government control. Everything in moderation, as they say. Too much government control leads to unhappiness, oppression, and usually revolt. Anarchy would be utter chaos since humans truly do desire structure and stability. Parekh's ideal is "...strong on law and order, sanctity of contract and minimal social security..." (McHugh 436). This does not actually sound too bad. I think a lot of things in life have become much more complicated than they need to be and simplifying the structure of government could make things easier for everyone.