I didn't mean to "punish" you. I was and am trying to be helpful.
I think you've got a good point that my statement about "shopping from government to government is not much use" is possibly overblown. Perhaps I should say "not much ultimate use" or make a less definitive assertion.
But my point (a point already made by Wendell Berry really) is that it takes a life invested in particular land to understand that place and actually nurture it. The overwhelming alternative option is to act on it with too much power and destroy it. Farming---being a steward of the land---is not just about power. It is about (for lack of a better word) sustainability, about passing along to future generations an enhanced life from the environment, or at least the option to participate in that life. Just producing yields, using petroleum based nitrogen for example, does not do this. It is using and gaining power to steal the resources of future generations---mining.
I still don't understand your position on this point.
Perhaps my definition of government will help: Government is the idea that certain people (those who govern) can legitimately do what it would be immoral for just regular people (the governed) to do. I believe that idea is a myth. There are no rituals like voting which can make immoral acts morally acceptable. If something is morally acceptable for any ordinary person to do, then there is no need for the designation of government to do it. The only function of government is to legitimize evil actions. I don't see that there's much way to get around that.
And your definition is that government is the means by which the slaves get away form the criminals? Perhaps we need a definition of criminals.
I'm sure I haven't addressed all your comments, and I'm sure I don't understand them all. I appreciate your observation (as I interpret it) that shopping from government to government might be useful in the process of eliminating the myth of government, because certain manifestations of the myth can be better than others.