Manfred,

...I speak of „Administration“, not of „Government,“ for the reason given in the articles I mentioned in Post 16. I consider that people are far too obsessively hanging to “There must be a government” and there is no need at all to do so, particularly not in a country such as the United States, for it wasn’t created by a government or legislature.

In one sense it doesn't matter what you call "it" - but it always matters what it is.  And if it has the legal, moral exclusive right to exercise force in defense of a "law" over a given jurisdiction, then it serves the core function of a goverment no matter what you call it.

We can argue about different aspects of this thing - whatever it is called - but we need to understand its purpose and to argue from there as to how we best impliment that purpose.

If what you call an "Administration" has even one of its declarations (like the term limits) that cannot be overturned or ignored, and this is a monopolistic rule for a period of time (allowing for amendments or mechanisms for making changes in that "law" that cannot be ignored) and if this is exerted over a given geographic territory, then it IS a kind of government, and it has some form of law.

It doesn't matter that there are those who are opposed to the very idea of a government (anarchists), or those who seek to use government to steal or enslave (Progressives, Socialists, Fascists, Communists, etc.), or those who seek government to take care of them (like a Mommy) or to enforce their wishes (like a Daddy).  If it is intended to enforce a specific idea or rule or law in a jurisdictionally monopolistic way.... then we are talking about a government and our job is to understand what we see as its purpose.  And if we agree on that purpose (e.g., "establish an environment friendlier to individual rights than any other we can envision" for example) then we move to understanding what specific forms will best accomplish that.

As to the founding fathers, Jefferson wrote the words for the Declaration of Independence, but it had to be put in place with a constitution (The Articles of Confederation) and the war with Great Britain.  Then after the war, and we had an established and recognized government, but the saw that it was too weak to serve the purpose of protecting our rights and they held the constitutional convention and tossed out the Articles of Confederation (the old constitution) and established our current constitution.

Insurance companies would not have gone to war with Great Britain, and if the political environment were so different as to give rise to armed, war-capable insurance companies, then they would need to be constrained by some rules that they lived under so that we had a common set of rules - a monopoly on the rules - hence a government.

At this point, to say that insurance companies have never used other than negotiations ignores the fact that they never could use anything else since in history they have always lived under governments (good and bad). We do have examples of private organizations who can and have exercised force: The mafia, drug cartels, ad hoc small groups getting together to rob and loot, terrorist organizations, war lords, etc. Those are examples where the law was violated. There are private security organizations and when they use force is is always examined (in a just society) to see if the force was justified under the law they live under.

I'm afraid that your proposal IS a form of anarchy in practice, and very close to one in theory. I say this because it wouldn't work if it is just about people agreeing to accept this idea and practice it with no laws, and no enforcement.  That is just fanciful wishing dressed up with some language, but no substance. A floating abstraction. If it is intended as a minimal set of rules that WOULD be enforced (i.e., no opposing group that wants, for example, to kill the administrative staff and start forcing people to adopt a different system - at gunpoint - would be to succeed because the administrative system was structured with sufficient teeth to enforce their existence). This is a practical matter.  If an organization can not exert enough force to stave of a potential competitor, then their will be chaos.  If that organization's force isn't constrained to protecting individual rights there will be tyranny.

If opposing forces could easily brush aside your structure, then it becomes irrelevant. What we are talking about is that force can arise in human interactions and it can be directed against others in ugly ways. It takes force to oppose that. The question is how do we design the structure to control the good use of force. The design of that structure is no good if it won't work.

What the founding fathers brought forth was excellent. The problems weren't - for the most part - in their product. It was in the moral code of the culture, and then in the educational system of our society.  Those two flawed systems led us to the damage to the structures the founding fathers started us with. If we were to reclaim much of that original system, but under rational egoism and a totally free market educational system, then a good structure (minimalist government based upon individual rights) would probably last for thousands of year instead of hundreds.  Anarchists who don't see that the problems are in the moral code and educational system, think that throwing out the political structure can somehow fix the current problems... that's just not sensible.