Libertarians like to pretend there is a gun at my head forcing me not to kill my neighbor. As much as I can't abide my christian neighbors, I really, honestly don't feel any desire to kill them. And my other neighbors, I am very happy are alive and my friends.

Yes the law states it is illegal to kill people and as much as I contemplate killing anyone, I know I will not and not because the government says I should not, but because I know it is what I would prefer not being done unto me - my bottom line of self-interest.

While I am white, middle class, living in a nice neighborhood where there may or may not be guns, I like not having to worry when I walk down the street that someone may randomly decide to shoot me.

In my, not so unique, part of the world, people are rich enough to, I hope, think kind of like me. Nevertheless murders still happen despite the proverbial gun of the state at their head. People are killing each other despite the government saying it is illegal. The benefit I hope is if the government is saying it is illegal to kill, it will make people think twice before killing me, breaking into my home, killing my husband and ruining my seemingly idyllic life.

I honestly don't feel coerced not to kill anyone, despite what the libertarians say. They say they'd prefer if i just decided not to kill anyone. Well I decided not to kill anyone already, but under extreme circumstances I can imagine being driven to the point of killing but only if it was to save one of the people I love, myself or someone I considered non-complicit in a life or death situation. I would also kill to defend my country or tribe, perhaps, if such a situation presented itself.

Recently a libertarian said she thought it was barbaric parents weren't allowed to circumcise sons in Germany. Personally, I have read that the country with the lowest incidence of cervix cancer was Israel thus lending support to the idea that male circumcision was a good thing. However, given Europe is beset by Muslims all wanting to perform genital mutilation on daughters, I can see why they ban male circumcision in an attempt to halt the slippery slope of perceived child abuse.

Yes I would put a gun at the head of anyone wanting to perform female genital mutilation on their daughters or "honor killings".

You may say I am being coerced into not killing someone, but I would prefer people think twice before killing me or a loved one or abusing their daughters or breaking into my home.

And no I don't think not putting a proverbial gun to their head to stop them doing it is a total deterrent. There will always be outliers in any system. We hardly know what makes people serial killers, why put people on an honor system when the current system doesn't fully stop people? You may say I am being coerced, but honestly, I don't feel the states gun at my head forcing me not to do those things that are illegal in our society because, yes I admit, I do sometimes get away with parking illegally.

FEMA was hardly at its best under the rein of W, the torturer.

I used to work at a military research institute and I cannot disclose what I did there or which one. Suffice to say I learned a hell of a lot about safety, amongst other things. One chemical I learned about was used to dissolve metals. If you get this on your skin you have an extremely limited time to get this off before it works its way in and starts dissolving your bones leading to an unavoidable and horrific death.

In libertarian world, if a disaster occurs, everyone pitches in and helps survivors. Not on your fucking life. Did anyone notice how those who rushed in to help with the collapse of the world trade center on 9/11 got no help? In Libertarian world you would be helped, I suppose, not sure who by, because all these details are mysteriously unclear. But lets say San Jose, the so-called capital of silicon valley, was leveled by earthquake, would i pitch in to help survivors? Gravely depends.

Peoples homes are full of all kinds of chemicals. Even smoke detectors are radioactive, while I can't remember what kind of emitters are used in smoke detectors, if it was crushed, I definitely wouldn't want its dust lodged in my lungs. I'm not sure how CO detectors work, but even assuming CO detectors are relatively safe, I cannot say for certain. I am not an average engineer (although kindly called so by electrical & electronic engineers), I wouldn't be able to run my eyes over a structure and determine how safe it would be to move this or that, to get pinned bodies out and perhaps I have a better eye at such things than the average, i wouldn't trust it.

As for a headquarters for R&D in Silicon Valley, not on your life. Anyone building proto-test chips, is also dissolving metals and dissolving metals is at least an acid even if its not the horror chemical I described above. The chemicals they use are none the less super dangerous, but building chips is all about dissolving metals.

If I was building a private FEMA it would work with local fire agencies to know what buildings contain what chemicals. Yes average personnel could learn what all the chemical symbols mean but without the appropriate equipment that's next to useless.

FEMA, like CDC, can access information on chemicals in use, experts on rotation, equipment and procedures. Wanna leave that to a bunch of amateurs who may or may not be sober when an emergency occurs? Even if civilians are given adequate training, who are they answerable to? Can they coordinate with military or co-operate with R&D centers?

So where do you concentrate your super skilled task force if you are FEMA? Obviously you would distribute FEMA resources but control it centrally. Deploy it when an emergency occurs but most of the time emergencies aren't occurring, fortunately. Who pays for those resources to be deployed? If this was a private organization, who would be paying for these people to be on call? Who organizes a roster? Who is paid to organize where resources are?

We try to prepare by having a (government paid for) weather bureau trying to predict when a tornado might rip through a town in the mid-west, we try to prepare by (having government paid for entities) predicting when an earthquake will hit on the west coast and we monitor for hurricanes and volcanoes (also paid for by the government). But in reality we don't know when a twister is going to wreak havoc or an earthquake.

Do we want Joe Blow having information about chemicals if he is a citizens' FEMA? Who knows, he may be a Timothy McVeigh. Libertarians will probably say they'd put in all those safe guards that will end up being exactly like the system we have in place already. So what have we gained in libertarian paradise? Absolutely nothing.

If a private organization does it, who is going to pay extra for all the profit they have to make on top of what it'll cost citizens to have the service? The same security authorizing NIST, CIA, FBI, NSA, Military clearances will be able to organize FEMA and CDC clearances. For a private organization, a separate service would have to be created to give security clearances and who knows, it may end up not being as good as the govt service, except it'll cost the tax payer more because the private enterprise will have to make a profit.

Libertarians are so naive.

First thing when training a dog is to teach it who is the boss. This is probably true with young children too as a first step of empathy.

Power, control, domination, courtesy, submissiveness are all part of the human condition.

Part of the very oldest part of the human brain is the very famous amygdala. Its where we get our fight, flight or negotiate traits from. If its big and angry looking, run. If its small and you're hungry, fight. If we're both the same size then negotiate.

Information from our eyes passes straight to the amygdala before ever making it to the primary visual cortex - why? If its big and huge and coming straight towards you, you'll have more time to get out of its way, because the cortex pretends to be the rational part of the brain. Its the part that thinks about things and generally wastes time giving names to things and performing abstractions. Very civilized and intellectual, but not very useful when a herd of buffalo are heading straight for you.

My point is we are predisposed to hierarchical structures based on millenia of evolution. Dogs, males of species which organize, of which human men are examples. Every new job I've taken its been my pleasure to watch men, regardless of position in the company, form hierarchies.

The best marriages I've seen, have always had the woman in the position of power. Research has shown that the best marriages permit the women to figure out what needs to be done and the man happily obeys. (I do have references for all my stuff, i just don't know how to add links yet and I am not sure I can be bothered at the moment to find the link.) This is often why men who cheat don't get divorced. They are still committed to their wives. As an aside, women tend to form equalities and cooperate as equals to perform tasks.

The formation of groups by men have been a problem for society since probably we humans climbed down from the trees. Even now groups of men coalesce to form armies in various countries which go around raping & killing women and children, destroying property and creating fear. Whether its in Africa or Afghanistan, the mafia, gangs of disaffected youth, these groups cause problems for others.

Without police forces instituted by the government, there would be no way to control them.

The best way to solve problems of this nature is always to increase the power women have. However when men have power, as with any group with power, it is harder to get them to surrender or give up some of their power when they are used to having it. And men's power originally derives from their being physically stronger and more violent than women. Men are more likely to engage in violent criminal activities. From this, all men benefit, despite the fact that most men I know are not violent and would never consider being so. Nevertheless, serial killers are always the people we least expect them to be. Women must always be guarded when they are with unfamiliar males, despite the general safety of American streets.

In our society, there will always be people who have more power than others. The main point is to have a benevolent government in tune with the needs of the country to ensure the well being of the people, that will enforce rules that preserve the sanctity of women's self determination, protect them and ensure their rights, along with the safety and well being of all the people of the country.

If a government is no longer acting in the best interests of the people we must take back our government and make it work for us again.