>It was stated clear in the previous reply: people need in law enforcement, i.e. police and courts, and it is not because they are dangeroous to each other, it is just few of them..
>
>So people do accept and need a system of law enforcement for the greater good. Progress!
>
Finally, you comprehend, so progress is real.

>But now you assert that there can be a system of laws without government.
>
Are you talking with yourself?

>So my next question is your own question: in a city like NY, who should be responsible for setting the system of laws to be enforced and defining the greater good to which we aspire?
>
It seems that progress statement came out prematurely.

>There is freedom and there are situations when it is curtailed.
>
>So you admit that individual freedom is *not* absolute over the greater good.
>
Most likely, you should check in your dictionary. It does not use plain English.

>Which brings us back to your earlier post in which you tried to equate enforcement of traffic light observance to an offensive Nazi slogan. What was that about? I'd also invite you to review your contradictory assertions about the relationship of "greater good" and freedom to society. Seems simple enough to me: either you accept loss of absolute freedom to live in a community or you remove yourself as far from society as you can tolerate to live the freedom you desire.

Take it easy. Did you come to USA alone?