This doesn't seem obvious at all to me.

Why won't government attract the outliers who covet power and are prone to corruption, while those outside government are likely to give them too much benefit of doubt, and cheer as their power grows?

I just don't see what the cooperativeness of the community has to do with limiting government growth beyond what's useful. I think that has more to do with other things, like general understanding of the dangers, and vigilence at limiting government institutionally.

So…let's have more federalism?

It implies that bureaucracy, for all its inefficiency, is highly efficient at one thing – allowing the sample to seek it's mean. It's the overwhelming mathematical rationale for a larger nation-state. If preventing social disorder is more important that optimizing social order (or “cooperativeness,” in your post), the larger state makes even more logical sense.

I guess this is where your distinctions lie. The liberaltarian project is one of optimization, not of minimization. In some cases these two principles are synonomous, but not in the case of governance and cooperativeness.

And by the way, if Earth Hour was supposed to be so important and such a symbol of collective sacrifice for the common good, then why was it at night on a Saturday, when most people would be using little power at home anyway? Why not call for oh, say … 10:00AM on a Wednesday? Probably because that would in fact be a sacrifice, and those who called for “Earth Hour” would be forced to reconcile their infantile pastoral fantasies with the actual implications of mass, diminished productivity. Even if one hour of lost work might not cripple the globe economically (or maybe it would, I don't know), it's telling that the green coalition shied from this at the get-go, realizing that the majority of human-kind would rather work and be prosperous than sit in idle contemplation of what their well-being is potentially destroying.

I think ultimately this comes down to how much further we will evolve. Many people who believe in evolution, ironically think man ceased to continue evolving somewhere around the Neolithic Period. I happen to disagree.

Certainly evolution never stops, but I don't see the sort of change in social behavior of comparative magnitude to the difference between modern humans and baboons with regard to the relationship to authority that you mentioned as coming for quite some time and when it comes it's hard to know exactly how it will be practiced.

Just look at all the mainstream conservative websites, blogs and radio shows. They are all in almost perfect lockstep with each other. If that's not cohesion, I don't know what is.