Then why fight for the material (business sponsored warfare) when the "other side" is so much better. Lets just get high and wait to be "taken over" to that better, other side.
Also, don't forget Einstein’s advice, "complex things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".
Good questions. First, there's more profit in "life" and concquering "countries" than there is in nihilist existentialism. Also, you meet hotter women. Second, what is "getting high" other than peeking over the self-imposed and socially-imposed barriers put around us, and seeing that the man behind the curtain is no wiser than us, therefore setting us free into a world of Nietzchian Supermen where we all battle each other for control of the realm around us, and doubly-therefore re-instituting the struggle that Sir Mark Thatcher and others are engaged in here on terra firma. No thanks.
My idea is that countries, if not owned by an individual, should be owned by private companies, which could then use them as marketing tools much like the name-placement arrangement with many NFL stadiums today. Think of it, since Sir Mark has failed in Equatorial Guinea, Bill Gates could step in and create Equatorial Microsoft! This is simply the logical extension and conclusion of many of John Locke's and Adam Smith's ideas. Think of it this way: Wal-Mart supplies many more of life's necessities than does the federal government, and much more economically, as well. Why not put Wal-Mart in charge of the U.S., and Kraft in charge of France (which prides itself on cheese production) and Ragu in charge of Italy. This would be the true Locke/Smith utopia!