> Well, if you take it like that, then of course we are all animals, we don't need laws, and we will all die eventually so what's the point? But that's an easy and uninteresting take.

It's not a question of needing laws -- it's that laws are either emergent from the incentives inherent in a given social context, or they aren't really laws at all.

The idea of law as a product of legislation, i.e. some specific organization formulating prescriptive rules in the abstract and then using the threat of force to coerce people into compliance, is almost a contradiction in terms, inasmuch as the strongest faction using force to make others comply with their demands is what you already have in a raw state of nature without having to formalize any concept of law to begin with.

> I get it, you're a libertarian, you don't want a government to "dictate" what you should or should not do.

No, it's a bit beyond that. It's that I don't really recognize the concept of "government" in the way you're using it as anything that really exists. Everything is just specific people acting on the motivations they already have within bounded contexts.

What you call "government" is really just a specific group of people, like any other, differentiated only by their use of symbolic woo-woo to override their own reservations about violating moral norms that everyone else generally adheres to.

> Now my answer to that would be that some people have different opinions and believe that having a government that defines what the people can and cannot do is the fair way

The problem is that government can't define what other people can and cannot do. They have no control over what inherent abilities or capacities others have. All they can do is threaten people with reprisals for ignoring their dictates, and many people routinely call their bluff and do what they want anyway.

And since the thing that restrains people from transgressing against each other is primarily the incentives inherent to human social relations, not the threat of reprisal from third parties who aren't present, it stands to reason that much of what "government" actively intervenes to enforce are rules that it is imposing onto society, but which society itself does not consent to.

> And there are countries that have a functioning democratic process that most of the people is happy about. And in those countries, relying on the ccTLD makes sense.

And, again, most of that "democratic process" is defined by people who have no idea what ccTLDs are and have no opinions on the matter, where the NIC is a de facto "private" organization in the first place.