[bheadmaster]

Citizens have to obey their country's laws (restriction of freedom) in exchange for government taking care of essential human needs like housing, clean water, electricity, food, and so on (obligation of the government).

If a citizen cannot get access to those needs (and remember - 5% unemployment is optimal), then why would anyone expect them to keep following their country' laws, and not steal and murder?

[_heimdall]

You seem to be assuming that we first have to have countries, laws, and governments. That seems like an obvious assumptuon today, but that isn't an absolute fundamental of life.

People don't need the heavy hand of governments and laws to stop them from stealing and murdering, as if that is the base state for all humans. If there were no laws, would you move right on to both of those acts?

[bheadmaster]

> People don't need the heavy hand of governments and laws to stop them from stealing and murdering, as if that is the base state for all humans. If there were no laws, would you move right on to both of those acts?

In absence of police-like force enforcing rules, crime happens often, so people naturally create police-like forces like neighbourhood watches to prevent crime.

Countries, laws and governments aren't un-natural - they're just more complex and powerful versions of institutions that naturally appear in any organized group of people.

If you were in a tribe whose hunters were hoarding meat for their fat sons, would you starve to death to avoid stealing because stealing is wrong?