Some hidden, subliminal messages which were missed in the reply to thoughts about the concept of governance (delete if you don't find this exciting):

. Who or what is to be governed?

i.e.: Is it a 'what' which needs to be governed, or is it a 'who'? Is it 'crime' which needs to be governed, or any and all of the members of that association who generally require regulation? To simply enter into an association with strangers for the purpose of being governed is a strange thing to agree to do; it's like an admission of personal deficiency ("SomeBody Stop Me!"). But of course, most people think that it will be 'others' who wil be governed, rather than themselves.

. What is inimical/destructive and to be regulated/prevented, or what is sacred which is to be upheld?

i.e.: Can the members of the association distinguish accurately between the good, the bad, and the merely ugly? In the U.S. it is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which are to be upheld, but who can say that these are truly appreciated & successfully defended? The values are listed in the precious original documents, but the education and the behavior of the citizens contradicts them.

. Who is to do all the work of preventing or upholding (how do they qualify for the job)?

i.e.: What are the victims going to be doing while their values are being encroached upon, or ignored? If the job of self-defense is given up to someone else, their ability to distinguish 'criminal' behavior from otherwise innocent/ignorant mistakes, must be established - and who will be the best judge of this, besides oneself? There is a danger in that an individual could become intellectually flabby, their ability to be of practical use in their own regard atrophying from inactivity. And then who would know who is qualified to reason on the matter? They could be fooled; they could be led down to the river to leap in.

. What is to be done about non-conformists to the rules (without contradicting the rules?)

i.e.: People who ask for rules (there oughta be a law) are the ones most inclided to break them. Rules often substitute for active intelligence, for the need to think about what one is doing and the evaluation of the outcome. But it really becomes absurd to speak of non-conformism in a voluntary system. If it's voluntary, anybody who doesn't want to follow the rules can simply leave, they don't have to hang around waiting for the administration of a 'punishment' of any kind (anybody who stays doesn't have any self-esteem). The most important question was overlooked: . What makes you such an authority on government? i.e.: What makes someone think that it is alright to put any one person as an authority over the mind of another? Authority should be earned through admiration. It is Reality which should govern one's decisions, not the overshadowing or overwhelming of one's mental functions by another; it is what should be recognized as 'the' authority by which to regulate one's behavior. Blanc