Got a "that comment was too long" so I'm splitting it in twain. Part the second:

"Please wake up."

You seriously need to lose the habit of using that phrase. It's annoying, and it makes me struggle not to devalue the rest of what you say.

"There is no way to keep a government in check - it wields absolute power over a geographical area, until the masses stop believing that someone else has the right to rule them, that is."

It is not the case that a government wields absolute power. I don't believe it's the case that there is no way to keep a government in check. Also, I don't think "someone else [having] the right to rule [us]" is a correct characterization of functioning democratic governance (even in a representative democracy).

'No, the only version of the idea of rights that works and is tenable, is one that is based on sound reasoning. If 100 people "collectively decide" that you don't have the right to own a spleen, I'm sure you'd agree that's not a particularly good way of defining rights. Sure,
a spleen is an extreme example, but it could be anything really.'

You have shown neither that the above is sound reasoning, nor that other frameworks are not.

And if 100 people decide I don't have a right to a spleen in a context without government, how does that go any better?

"Any collective decision where you're harmed without you harming anyone is obviously wrong."

The more narrowly you define "harm" the more true that becomes, but even at the limit you have trolly-problem-like hypotheticals. If it's the case that 1) Jon dies, or 2) everyone dies, then after we work really hard to figure out some other solution, even if Jon doesn't do the noble thing and volunteer it's unfortunate but not "obviously wrong" for the group to decide he needs to go even if he's not guilty of anything - though they should be damned sure that's really the situation.

"Taxation is not a collective decision, especially when neither of us was ever asked, nor were our parents. In fact, ordinary people have never been asked if they'd like to be extorted. That's kind of like, not how extortion works, after all."

Tax measures have many times been on the ballot in California. Many have passed. I would presume this to be true of at least some other states.

'Here's a conspiracy theory for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yuC... .. it's
just that it's "the official conspiracy theory". That's exactly what
governments would have us believe. Does it sound believable?'

Even repeated derisively like that, little there seems terribly absurd (if a little absurdist). Remembering that this is a rare event picked apart for more than a decade
for all the smelly bits, it seems more or less SNAFU.

'Being able to switch from Prison A to Prison B doesn't mean you're free though.'

So, now we're prisoners? I agree with the premise you state here (though having many prisons to choose from would surely constitute being somewhat more free), but there are countless other ways in which it's unreasonable to call us prisoners - we plan our own days, we can travel, we choose what we eat, we choose when we exercise, we're not segregated
by gender...

At least for most of us. Disappointingly many are prisoners - which is one of those things that needs fixing; I don't deny that there are a lot of them, I just disagree that abolishing government is the best way to fix them.

'Here's more on that: http://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/the_handbook_of_...

Yeah, nothing is more illuminating then a failed attempt at satire, particularly when it's verbose and ridiculous. Thank you for passing that along - my eyes are opened.

'Government doesn't change that you know. If someone decides to rob you, a police officer won't materialize between you and him to prevent it. If someone wants to hurt you, he'll evaluate the risks vs the "reward", and make a decision based on that.'*

Credible threat of enforcement changes the risks, and so may change the decision. This should be obvious.

"Luckily, the vast majority of people won't hurt you with or without a government."

Agreed, but largely because we live in a society with sufficiently little violence. This is the case because we are able to sufficiently trust one another, which is enabled at this scale by government. I highly recommend "Liars And Outliers", by Bruce Schneier, on the topic of trust in society.

"Prohibition is something the government did. You're just helping my case by bringing it up."

I thought we were trying to explore our various positions and learn something. If we're just trying to score points in a game, my bad - can I have a mulligan?

My point wasn't "Government does great things, like prohibition!" It was nearly as much a mistake as the drug war, obviously. And yes, as an example of a mistake government can make, it certainly helps the case that government is bad.

But my point was deeper. One of the consequences of prohibition (of alcohol or drugs) was to remove government as a means of settling disputes for a group of people handling relatively large sums of money. The result, as Hobbes would've predicted, was violence. There are
confounding factors you can cling to, but it was true in the 1920s with prohibition of alcohol and it's true today with prohibition of other substances, and it clearly provides some evidence for the model.

'So now government is a "technology", as if it's something we, the people, "use" to our benefit? :P Nice going there.'

Yes, precisely. And much like any technology it can be misused, poorly designed, poorly configured; and this can lead to frustration or harm. That doesn't mean it has no good uses that can outweigh the harm, or that the harm can't be minimized, or that waving a magic wand will make it go away and things will be better (cf. gun control).

'Well, now you're saying we need "better government", but that's like asking for "better enslavement".'

I've always been saying we need "better government". We always need better government. It's only anything like asking for "better enslavement" if we accept the premise that government is slavery, which I've rejected.

'Once again, governments are. not. responsible. to. anyone. for. their. actions.'

Once again, that's not true. In a functioning democracy, governments are responsible to the people lest the groups with power lose it. In any system, the possibility of revolution serves as a partial check. Governments are also responsible to other governments, in some extreme situations.

'Do you get that because there is no higher power than government, there is nothing to keep them in check? Do you get that because of that, there's nothing governments can't do to us individuals?'

I'm not sure where you derive this ranking in which government is highest, or why only lower powers can be kept in check.

"It takes a massive uprising to topple a government, and then it's always just replaced with another."

Not always; when it's not, things suck even more; see, for instance, many parts of Somalia.

"Oh, and along the way, lots of innocent people are beaten, tased, killed, and tortured by the government, just like in the Ukraine or Venezuela these days."

Revolution is horrible, yes.

"Wake up?"

Again, stuff like this just sounds silly. It makes it harder to actually consider what you have to say.

"The solution to a group of sociopaths in power hurting everyone is not to replace it with another."

I don't think "group of sociopaths in power hurting everyone" is a legitimate description of all government.