>A tribe of 50 doesn't need a government for millions of people but it still has elders and chieftains.
This is not necessarily true. Such forms of symbolic authority most likely developed in groups of humans only after they began practicing domestication.
>A democracy with a heavily scrutinized police and military offers some measure of security and freedom. It isn't perfect and no one ever said it was, there is space for improvement and if you have anything intelligent to suggest please go ahead but in the real world perfection is not possible.
Of course nothing is perfect. Life without police wouldn't be perfect, but I would prefer it to what we have now. "Some measure of security and freedom" is vague and relative. Sure, if you are a wealthy property owner, you have a larger measure of security and freedom because the police will protect you from the poor and disenfranchised.
You want a suggestion? Okay, how about we abolish property and the police, I'll take some land that a corporation or rich person owns but isn't using, grow food on it, and live there.
The idea that the police and military are "scrutinized" in any meaningful way is silly. I've worked for the police; while they get upset by the fact that the public doesn't trust them and wants to keep them in check, the police know that things like bodycamera recordings will almost always justify their unreasonable actions. They are allowed to kill people for not following orders. Having video evidence that the person was disobeying or might have been reaching for a weapon just makes it easier to quash public outrage. Consider how few officers have been punished for murders in the past few years despite all the high-profile incidents.
>Wishing there was no government is like wishing there was no crime.
By definition there would be no crime if there was no government...