Yes, that's why we have representative government, i.e., so we can come to an approximation of a consensus on the matter.
Why settle for the approximation of a consensus when you can work for the real thing? --especially since, judging from the arguments you make, from your viewpoint the current approximation must be really execrable.
Well, if you are entirely self-sufficient, I suppose you will have no need to ever pay sales tax. If, however, you choose to benefit from the trade environment, then you pay as you go.
You're telling me that if it weren't for the government I wouldn't be able to trade with my neighbor? How does that work? I barter with my friends and neighbors all the time, I don't pay sales tax, and the government has absolutely nothing to do with any of it.
I believe we've covered this one ad nauseam already.
...while I don't believe we've covered it at all. You've asserted that a coercive government is necessary. I have explained that it's not, using the first scenario that occurred to me, that of the insurance company. (Of course, it's entirely possible that in real life someone would come up with an even better solution and make scads of money.) You've asserted that that would never work because the evil big corporations would unfairly freeze the little guys out. I've pointed out that it doesn't work that way without a government. You expressed limited agreement with me in the area of monopolies. And suddenly you're back to repeating your assertion that coercive government is necessary, without further support.
If you'd like to stop arguing, I entirely understand. But let's acknowledge that we're going to stop arguing, rather than intimating that the argument is complete.
