Government is a group of people who claim a territorial monopoly in violence, ...
agreed.
I would define governance as voluntary, consensual agreements between people to organize cooperation, economic exchange, and dispute resolution.
agreed.
The latter does not require the former.
I disagree.
In order to "organize cooperation, economic exchange, and dispute resolution" you are facing a hierarchy.
By government I mean the original concept of a nation state, which by definition deals with a reality beyond its sphere of influence (ergo the next border/problem it encounters), and whose core task is therefore to deal with foreign policy matters. In this sense, central government must be drastically downsized to its core function.
The hierarchy is the family, the municipal administration, the city administration, the state parliament, the federal parliament.
Each of these units regulates coexistence according to its internal and local affairs. Participation is voluntary and people stand for election. The use of funds for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure has a limited radius and influence due to the nature of the hierarchy and funds. If the influence of a municipal administration extended beyond its own territory, it would no longer be called a municipality. If the local residents want an indoor swimming hall, a public library or a fire department, they need not to ask the state government, they decide for themselves. Or so, it should be.
With regard to the hierarchies, it is clear that the respective influence is limited. Where a municipality comes up against a large city, it is not the municipality that determines what should happen in the city, but the city that wants to do it; though they may want to throw together their competences and work with one another.
Where the city ends, it is surrounded by lands and other cities (groups down and up the hierarchy) and where all cities are found in a particular region, they must work together to decide on projects that affect an entire region, such as the construction of a dam, for example.
How do you as a family member or as a community member want this matter to be decided when you as a family or as a community are already fully occupied with the matters closest to you?
But who is supposed to guard the border when neighboring states line up as enemies? Who should establish diplomatic relations with neighboring countries if a conflict threatens or has broken out?
Who should defend a country that is under attack in an emergency? Should the family, the community that is inside a country wait until the problem builds up right on their doorstep? What should they do against an army or other invaders and exploiters coming close?
You may wish to have no border, and the country next to yours may also wish to have no border, but at some point you will encounter a state that wishes to have a border and maintain a more closed system for reasons we are not entitled to judge, as that nation may be thousands of miles away and have a past that causes them to do so. We may find that reason unreasonable, but we have no right to impose on them how they should govern. I am talking facts, do I not?
Before the EU, we had national borders in Europe that were manned. But you could travel to any European country and not have the impression that the border was a frightening experience where you had to cower in your car seat at the sight of soldiers armed to the teeth. There was no such sight. The overwhelming majority of travellers never had an experience of oppression and violence at these border crossings.
Therefore, the border crossings can become very permeable over many years because the neighbouring countries maintain a good friendship and see no need for hostilities. They welcome mutual tourism and trade with each other. And that's how it was as a matter of fact here in Europe for many, many years. I witnessed and experienced it myself, since I am old enough.
That follows your no border concept as much as it is reasonable and doable. These borders existed but they operated as if such border was not really there. To the extend that the atmosphere and the circumstances change, the border changes its state of relaxation or tense. Why would you have anything against this flexibility?
So, a strong border is necessary just in (bad) case. If peace is disturbed, if conditions become dangerous, if a major conflict arises. You also would want to have a well-trained, well-equipped fire brigade in case a fire breaks out, don't you?
@jacobtothe
I want to add to the paragraph where I said earlier that
They also welcome new residents, hence foreigners, as becoming long term members of their societies.
They cannot possibly maintain such welcoming culture when they are taking in masses and masses of immigrants in very short times, and are disabled of having a coordinated flow as in normal times, as a consequence. Which was my original argument.
Border controls are carried out at random in relaxed times, they identify the criminals and treat them properly strict. But they cannot operate normally if they are flooded with refugees and illegal immigrants. This is irresponsible towards both the locals and the immigrants. No one is being treated with justice or dignity here.
The fact that so many people are crossing the borders is a strong expression of dysfunction in the countries of origin of those seeking to enter the country. This dysfunction is not reduced by letting in all these people, on the contrary, it causes a never-ending stream of new arrivals. A neighboring country or the neighboring country of the country that allows criminals to traffic in people, brutalize its internal conditions and must not be further encouraged to simply get rid of this problem by treating people like cattle.