Kshartle,
Re: your Moral Assertion...
This is not a moral argument and the attempt is constantly being made that it is. Morality is a code of behavior. Human self-ownership either exists or it doesn't. Someone's disbelief doesn't invalidate it no more than someone's belief in it, sort of like God. The argument that it doesn't exist because some people don't respect only proves that if rights exist they are violated.
You seem to be backing your position up into stating that "self-ownership" is more about undesrtanding consequences of your actions rather than the morality of them. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. Understanding that swinging a branch at someone's head will hurt them does not, in and of itself, make that a "wrong act."
that people don't get that government action is violence and force of some humans against others I completely agree, many people don't get that. That's why I argued that this should be pointed out and explained, since they already know that stealing and murder/violence is wrong. No need for the latter argument, just the former.
People see certain wars as necessary, certain government acts of force as necessary. I mean people can be dumb, but they're not THAT dumb. If it was as easy as you say, your message would have caught on a long time ago. Austrians have been making it for a LONG time... yet most people still view government as legitimate. So they're either bad people, or there is some nuance to the statement "murder and theft is wrong" that we have to account for. Further, to establish theft has occured, you have to be able to observe that private property has been established. In this world, one person's "Theft" is another person's "enforcement," and so there can really be "no government," as we are all trying to enforce our "right to property" as individual governments, many of us who are "wrong" in our claim, and often we only negotiate because the other party has a bigger gun than us, so "arbitration" is kind of a BS term for "submitting to government" as well.
I'm not arguing against government per say. I'm arguing against the use of force.
And in a world of competing claims against property, where we must interact with the earth to survive, this is simply impossible. We can't take something from the earth without it being unavailable to someone else. By homesteading my 1/2 acre lot, others can't pick the apples on it. Why? Because I see it as mine and I say so.
Imagine putting 10 people on a small island on it with a small, fertile (lots of fish) lake, and a few coconut trees. My claim of private property is de facto force against others, and I certainly didn't mold the island from my own creativity and hard work. Force, order, a system, a system of organized force is going to NEED to be developed, or it's just going to be a bunch of disorganized force and starvation. People might just "get along" fine. This is probably because they know they're outnumbered, or that there is some stronger force than their ability to say "this lake is mine."
You're now calling any act of force from one human against another "government"? Why is government force/violence acceptable but non-government is not? See I think it's all unacceptable, and the existance of one doesn't justify the other. And it's all a choice.....it's not the law of gravity or the sun. There could have been aztecs who argued that child sacrifice would always exist like it was just a force of nature....but it's not....it was a choice. It's no longer chosen.
What we have is called a "moral dilemma." It means that there's no perfect outcome, and I'm tasked with suggesting a "least worst" outcome. I'm not saying all forms of force are equal. In fact, that's specifically why I call for a framework of government. One that would view child-sacrifice as evil and worthy of punishment, and would collect a little bit of taxes from everyone (force) to prevent children from being killed (a far, far worse force, in my opinion).
And you've said it yourself that government isn't really real. Who's choice was the existence of government? No one government agent... even the President sees himself as relatively temporary and powerless at times. No one voter... we are all voting (if at all) for the lesser of two evils, while certainly not condoning every action they take.
So nobody is really even driving the bus of government. It's like a Ouija Board. Some people can influence it, but nobody can get rid of it. The "agents of government" are essentially employees told to do a job a certain way. This arrangement is just another way to allocate force in ways that can be harmful, but most who advocate for it hope to actually limit force.
So government is just one possible imperfect partial solution to a moral dilemma that looks like a bigger version of my deserted island example.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
and certainly don't think it's worth pursuing. There have been about 20 diversions off the topic into making me the topic. I think I'm a boring topic.
Including my sweet Grandmother, who if she is immoral than I don't want to be moral 
