Comment: I can try to be more precise.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I understand that you can (see in situ)

I can try to be more precise.

"I'm asking you to explain to me is how you can have government without theft..."

If there are no criminals...

You pick out one type of crime, theft, so it is very specific, very precise, or is it ambiguous?

If there is one person in one place at one time and that one person plans, and then begins to execute the single crime of theft upon one targeted victim, then that crime in progress can be avoided theoretically.

If it is a theory, then it is a theory that government can be used to avoid that crime in progress.

If the crime is actually avoided, the victim is not made into a victim, and therefore the criminal is not able to commit the theft, then government moves past the concept of being government and it becomes an established example of government being real.

Does that message convey well from me to you?