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.
Complete consensus is just not possible, in the real world, on any large scale. Rather than composing my own explanation, however, let me refer you to the words of someone possessing a far loftier stature in the field of political science than my poor self, viz.,
For if the consent of the majority shall not in reason be received as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual; nothing but the consent of every individual can make anything to be the act of the whole: but such a consent is next to impossible ever to be had, if we consider ... the variety of opinions, and contrariety of interests, which unavoidably happen in all collections of men, the coming into society upon such terms would be only like Cato's coming into the theatre, only to go out again. Such a constitution as this would make the mighty Leviathan of a shorter duration than the feeblest creatures; and not let it outlast the day it was born in: which cannot be supposed till we can think that rational creatures should desire and constitute societies only to be dissolved. For where the majority cannot conclude the rest, there they cannot act as one body, and consequently will be immediately dissolved again. -John Locke, The Second Treatise On Government, paragraph #98
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.
If it were not for government, you'd be in the state of nature where your neighbor could kill you for what you have, so long as he could catch you by surprise, or overwhelm you will sufficient numbers. You seem not to appreciate this fact.
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.
I believe that if you look at my previous posts you will see that I have addressed this. If you disagree with what I've said, that is your prerogative. There is no point in going round and round in circles on this topic. Simply put, governments require coercive power so as to enforce laws, keep the peace, prevent injustice, restrain evil, etc.,.
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.
My part of that particular argument is complete (defense rests). If you have more to say on the matter, feel free to do so. I have certainly not conceded the point merely because I have concluded my argument.
