[quote=Goldmarble]
And I am appalled at the idea, and reality, that the Government can tell me what to do, and how to live. If I don't like their ideas, their private enforcement officers will either arrest me, or try to coerce me to pay a fine, and if I refuse? Then I get arrested.For example: Say I hate being in a car, and using a seat belt*. I'm well aware of the risks and potential hazards of not wearing it, but not wearing it endangers no one else, but my own life. I do not agree with the idea that the Government should have the authority to make laws to protect us, from ourselves. If someone chooses to do something stupid that doesn't endanger anyone else? To me, that is their prerogative, their responsibility, and their freedom to do so.* I would wear my seat belt regardless of law or now laws to the effect of wearing it.
[/quote]

I can dig it, though, I do think the body becoming a flying projectile could endanger someone else (or turn a minor accident into manslaughter). I would add something though too.

I believe government is a useful tool for large scale programs like social services. Things that operate across the whole state or nation, these big sweeping programs that push tons of money, require many figures, and take weeks of dedication to produce make sense to fall onto a group focused on such. Meanwhile, I expect smaller programs to run within communities as well formed by, and agreed upon by the community. In my eyes, every community should have a shared governance that they're involved in directly. In my country, America, this is usually not the case. Communities trying to create their own rules and support systems are often associated with something else and categorized as a sub-culture or something other 'fringe'-like sort of idea that makes them appear off the norm. Really, the fact is it is a bit difficult for the average joe directly involve themselves in large-scale programs without a position or some other 'authority' to wear. By creating communal agreements that are actively engaged with (not just town/city laws we inherit and may or may not even be aware of) you give the ability to every individual to become directly involved. I see the need for government, but I believe in the adage that absolute power corrupts, so I believe power should be shared and shifted based on those with the most experience to lead given the situation. In other words, more than one leader, emphasis on those with experience/training/education relevant to the issues being engaged with (i.e. Boasting Commander and Chief status=Nothing when trying to solve deforestation). Again though, larger government would be expected to maintain larger programs, and possibly even provide incentives to those communities that actually operate in this way. When individuals are more responsible and politically active, you don't need massive protests to be heard -- you just talk.