They wouldn't.  But government is not about what makes sense, it's about governance.

I can surely see this happening; however, I believe this is more an effect of society frowning upon violence and murder, than there being a law; to take this a step further, I would say that people do not frown upon violence because there is a law, but that there is a law because people frown upon violence; it is because the to-be killer is connected with his fellow people that he is less likely to kill, for the same reason why he is less likely to go out in public naked--he feels connected with other people and we generally agree that we can settle our conflicts without violence.  Ergo, society first had to make the decision that they didn't like this, or at least their totalitarian leader decided it was bad (but of course, he's not typically going to stop himself.)  What may be interesting to see is, if a society agreed that killing was always legal, would murders go through the roof?  And would this be because there was no law against it, or because the citizens loved to kill?  If it's the former, it seems, death rates would go no higher; if it's the latter, they would've already been doing it to begin with.

Anyway, we're drifting; my initial point was, if government is the centralization of man's power, could he not make a conscious decision to how he would like himself to devote that power?  Must that power be taken from him for us to get anything done?  My only complain would be that we would be much too disconnected from one another to ever pull such a reality off--this is where centralization is the only way we could coordinate ourselves.  However, we are now so connected, we can freely talk to anyone in the world if we wanted, not to mentioned people in our very countries, states, neighborhoods; we're not at all disconnected anymore.  We can plan and plot by ourselves, now, from our very own homes.  I think we have the ability to reason and agree on the best way of running the general area in which we live, or at least find places we would enjoy better; I don't believe we must be forced, especially when the forcers are a minority of us (like PETA, or the hooded order, or corporations in the case of America), to better ourselves as another sees fit.  I believe, if a method of living is truly exceptional, it will stand out.  I argue that it is only through reason and peace that we will see an improvement in our conditions, as opposed to propaganda and violence; we did not achieve the idea of evolution by allowing the creationists to forever propagandize, ignoring calls of reason to state otherwise, and I do not believe we'll find peace and security through inherently violent governance, with a blind eye to attrocities.  I argue that government does not allow man to function, but man who allows government.

Some Americans would call you unAmerican.  But I call you, aware.

That is somewhat the point I want to make.  There is a law everywhere in this nation against killing, and yet murder rates are all over the place in every city.  It seems to me that a law against killing, despite having much the same consequences, does not stifle murder.  Rather, I don't want to kill you because I have food, and water, and all the things I could ever hope for (chiefly, a computer with Internet access.)  If, however, it was a life and death sort of thing, and you had food and water, or the thing which could get me food and water, that being money, I would kill you if it meant my own survival.  Violent crime, it appears to me, is spawned from necessity, and there is a lot of that going on even in this nation, but violent crime is even more prevalent in places where one's survival is threatened.

Anyhow, if we made a law that said, "If you kill someone, we will kill your entire family," murder rates could still be high or low, depending; I don't think history has shown this has ever stopped crime, which would imply that crime is not affected by law.  But in the case of murder specifically, the solution isn't to change someone's mind; the solution is for them to not have a reason to murder, which is essentially what we're all driving for, I believe, whether we're socialist or not.  This, of course, does not apply to organized crime, but the mafia isn't that much different than government in this respect.  Anyway, for now, until we get this mess sorted out, trying to change a murderer's mind isn't going to help the position he is in.

Comparing murder to ideologies is a bit different, though; murder isn't something we do because we believe in it, except for the tiny amount of sociopaths among us who don't care how they get their way, and I believe it's clear what jobs they prefer and what positions they strive for, but when it comes to global issues, such as saving the animals or killing all the blacks, it's really not something we should force on people, for we would all be saving the animals or killing the blacks if it was something we all believed in.  I'll be honest, I don't give a fuck about the animals, and I'd rather not kill all the blacks, I like some of those fellas, but I don't think I should force people to believe in the same things I do.

I couldn't say; I don't know if there is one.  My only point is, if I were a gajillionaire, I'd rather have a billion things worth a gajillion than live as if I were impoverished.  If I have those billions of things, that means I put my gajillion straight back into the economy.  In a capitalistic world, I would've reinvested that cash into my gambling business, which would've paid for a lot of people to do a lot of different things; perhaps I own a real casino and needed more craps tables and slot machines and what have you.  Someone, paid, had to make those things for me to have.

If people don't want to conserve the environment without government, why would they want to with?  If the point is not ultimately, "I don't care because I want to force people to do X instead of doing Y", then I'm not following; PETA could also make this argument; the hooded order could make this argument; anyone with any ideology at all could make this argument.  Yes, we can use government for any purpose we so desire; we could even kill all the Jews because fuck all, if we think it's right, we think everyone should think it's right--am I right?  Is it simply an unfortunate truth that preservation of the environment can only be achieved through force, or are we turning a blind eye to alternative methods of changing people's minds?

Further, isn't privately owned land technically the same as publicly owned land if it is owned by government?  And if the government is merely a collection of people who decide, invariably, what they will do on their private land, then the initial question is presented again: If people don't want to conserve the environment without government, why would they want to with?  For, it would seem to me, if we truly wanted to, we would be doing so right now, without need of government intervention, and the business owners who, of course, rely on our business, refuse to help us in our cause, would go swiftly out of business without our help--that is, except if there's still swathes of people who don't believe in your cause, which would be the case if the environment is still in extreme danger.  Therefore, your problem is still there: your problem is to change minds.  Without this, government or not, you can expect to achieve nothing, no matter what you fight for.


Don't we know where fluoride comes from? 

We have books, so physical schools aren't really needed; having a personal instructor to talk to, however, is something different.

Inefficiency is extremely profitable.

It means, you can only get to Heaven by first admitting to being a sinner.  If you're not a sinner, there's no place for you in Heaven, as you are only kidding yourself into thinking you could be a good person without God--or so I interpret religion, I don't believe any of this   So naturally, it is the one who wishes to do the worst, vile things, who would look best while cast under a holy light.

Okay fine you caught me, I was just inverting your quote

Everything you do was, is, or will be illegal, in any given nation.  The question is, do you care?

The road to heaven is paved with bad intentions.

I'll consider a way of life free when I am no more a slave to my good conscious as any other man; if there's someone above the law, you're not free, only the person above that law is ever truly free.  There was a time where there was freedom, but you likely wouldn't want to live in it

Living on an island is expensive.  You don't produce much, if anything, and have to get everything imported.  Unless you're already doing business on the mainlands, you're better off staying there.

A comment I liked:

The crime rate right now in Detroit is completely insane.

I know, I'm a fuckin beast at code

That makes sense.  So in socialism, would the state be likely to own Apple and Microsoft?

I'm pretty sure most politicians are sociopaths; the point is to hide it with a smile and great hair