Sort:  

"The individual"
If the individual wants to form a gang or a militia in order to take control(or "not take control") then individuals will do it.
They are obviously inclined to do so(as evidenced by the presence of government).

Your confusion is in believing that an entity can prevent itself.
Government stopping a group of people(with a militia) from taking over is as silly as believing that rabbits will stop long eared rodents from eating the vegetable garden.

If you put rabbits in your garden to stop rabbits then you are...well....
You are in the exact same boat as people that vote in order to prevent a group of people from taking over control and forcing their will on others.

This is what I also am eluding to, government can be shrunk by at least 90%, the general public don't really have an idea just how huge and wasteful it is. I think we need to shrink it and rethink what a governments role should be and go from there. It's a start, as living conditions get better, poverty reduced, you can reduce government more so.

And without fighting what parts to reduce. Lets say that regulations that protect you from food poisonings by expecting restaurants to follow certain hygiene rules or regulations that simply create monopolies which should be get rid off.

I'm not so sure that regulation is what protects me from food poisoning? If a restaurant is causing food poisoning then the free market will sort it out, especially in the tech age we are in of connectivity and social media.

That works too.. Only sad thing in that is that shit is probably already in customers pants.. but that customer can always write an angry review.

That is true, but even with all the regulations that we currently have there are still cases of bad food making its way into customers stomachs. People still think government is there to protect us, the truth is more so that the government wants to protect the income they receive from us. I don't believe any more people would suffer from food poisoning if government shrunk by 90%, maybe 500 years ago, but not today.

You have point there

Reputation systems will do better than regulation

You and your allies stop them.

99.9% of humans are normally cooperative with other humans.

The .1% (or less) of humans that are sycophants are born leaders that are very hard to stop.
These people become politicians and are able to protect themselves and at the same time attack others all within the laws that they create.
Governments are fictional entities...a sword and shield for wicked leaders.
How much damage can they do, and for how long... in the absence of government protection?

"Governments are fictional entities...a sword and shield for wicked leaders."
Is this about shadow government?

No.
Just pointing out that governments are not real...they contain no atoms or mass.
But the people that believe in governments are real.

I got the idea :)

In a sense we already do have gangs and different militias in control, we call them nation states. The police and army are part of that. If we dismantle the system they operate in then yes something similar will take its place, maybe private armies defending communities? Guild communities based on talents and skills something similar to early renaissance europe or the so called Dark ages. We can never fully do away with a governing organisation because without it we would not be organised. The best outcome we can hope is an efficient automated governing organisation without the class privileged rulers. This can be done through blockchain technology and volunteerism, The theory has been laid down by the Anarchist thinkers such as Kropotkin for a long time but never tried out. The best we as individuals can hope for is a community we trust, the rest is propaganda.....