Government is evil by its very nature

What is the functional difference between a government wielding a great deal of power and a corporation or consortium of corporations wielding a great deal of power?

 

If the power to rule comes by consent of the governed, then what of those who have not consented. That is the rub. That is where government apologists begin to falter, and where the lie that is called implied consent originates. Consent to be governed is either freely given or it is not. The government cannot simply usurp the power to rule where consent has not specifically been given.

 

Governments can steal your money and your life. I do not intend any disrespect but how young are you?

 

If you don't consent to be governed, you have the ability to leave. Just like if you don't want to live in an area with a homeowner's association, there is a simple solution: don't live there.

- - - Updated - - -

If the government doesn't exist or has basically no power, what's to stop corporations from stealing your money or your life?

 

Democracy in itself is tyranny if it is used to imply consent to those who have not given consent voluntarily. The power to govern originates with the people, and cannot be legitimately taken from the people by any act other than by their own free will.

 

The quantity of money, and hence its price, is, under our current system, entirely controlled by the government.

 

And if inflation was only due to the quantity of money, you'd have a point.

 

The price of money, and hence the "price level", is controlled by the government.

 

Rebellion is also an option. Are you familiar with this nation's origins?

"Governments can steal your money and your life. I do not intend any disrespect but how young are you?"

I do not intend any disrespect but how young are you?

I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Constitution. Then, if you want to have a real discussion it might be interesting. The choice is not between anarchy and tyranny. You will not understand this until you know something about our founding and the Constitution.

 

Yes. Money supply is controlled by the government. Price level in the economy is not.

Do you seriously not know what GDP X P = MS X V is?

 

You mean the Constitution that authorizes taxation? I thought that was evil? By the way, the Constitution wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the fact that the small government under the Articles of Confederation was a massive failure.

By the way, how do you revolt when you don't believe in taxation or a government that can take (and therefore pay for) loans? Are you going to built an Air Force and Navy through Kickstarter? Maybe a for profit one where people have to pay before the Air Force will send fighter to intercept a strike coming for their house?

 

And what happens to P if M rises?

 

That's dependent upon GDP and V isn't it?

 

What happens, ceteris paribus, to P if M rises?

 

Inflation is not a function of debt, it is a function of increasing monetary supply faster than the demand of goods and services. To say the government could not pay the Revolutionary Army is not accurate, it is more accurate to say they chose not to pay them. Wealth in our new nation was not the issue, as is the case today, the issue was sharing the wealth. The newly freed country was wealthy in land and resources which could have been used to pay the debts of the war, as it did with its officers such as Washington himself, but as the wealthy often do, they chose to stiff the fighting men who won the countries freedom, in order to exploit the wealth of the country for themselves.
I am not sure what kind of economist would argue that inflation is simply the function of money being produced faster than the demand of goods and services, but I do not think anyone can argue that the duty to coin money was entrusted to the government and the responsibility to monitor the policies of money creation lies with them, even if they have illegally delegated that duty.

 

What legal power does a corporation have? Government can do pretty much what ever it wants to a citizen including killing them.

 

A corporation can't legally put you in jail.

 

Your logic is flawed. Why should the fact that you were born of a certain geography have a legal bearing on your will to be illegally governed. That is the same stupid argument that the Vietnam apologists used in the 60's to try to justify an illegal war. "America love it or leave it" only now it seems to be the chant of the liberals instead of the conservatives.
That is simply a trying to justify tyranny by way of the assumption of claim of the territory. It is logical fallacy in its assumption.

 

In todays economy, it is the overwhelming factor.

 

Ceteris paribus in this case does not apply in the real world. In the real world, GDP and V shift.

- - - Updated - - -

Legal power is unlimited when there is no law to limit someone's actions.

- - - Updated - - -

Until we have private police corporations working with private prisons.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should that fact that you were born of certain parents or in a certain area mean that certain rights are protected?

- - - Updated - - -

That's what people keep saying but the models most economists like to use don't factor in the massive changes in V that have begun since globalization took over.

 

You gave me an equation. What was it, pq=mv? So if m is increased, what, ceteris paribus, happens to m?

 

It increases but that situation does not apply in the real world. GDP and V also move. Since globalization has kicked off, V moves a lot.

 

I find it amusing to be exposed to this type of worldview. It is truly astounding how one can become so disconnected from reality. I wish you a quick recovery.

 

There is another troll who posts here. He, too, failed at understanding that the right to tax is not without significant limits.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;​

So, for the second time today there are only three reasons: 1) to pay the debts. 2) and provide for the common defense and 3) to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Nearly everything we are currently forced to pay taxes for are unconstitutional.

And this is the second time I have had to remind someone, the other is a troll, that the options are not anarchy or tyranny. The options are legitimate, Constitutionally-limited government versus tyranny. Why do all of the leftist, authoritarian statists, opt for tyranny?

 

Except that the Constitution does not define "the General Welfare", therefore it is up to interpretation. Nearly everything the government does could be interpreted to be for the "General Welfare".

Failure to define terms like that is one of the biggest flaws of the Constitution.