Peter Hume: "You assume that the benefits are because of, rather than despite states."

True. But at least I offer evidence that in real world conditions establishment of government type X was followed by effect Y. You respond that correlation does not mean causation - which is correct. But that is a bit rich, as you don't try to prove your ideas are grounded in reality. What you give me instead are theories based on bold assertions, with no absolutely attempt to show the way humans and their societies behave in real life has any relationship to either. Form my point of view we have as well be discussing the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.

Peter Hume: "it’s a crime not to pay tax"

It is not a crime to move to a different state where you don't. That is why it is consensual.

Peter Hume: "The private production of *enforcement* (‘sheriff’), as opposed to *adjudication* (judge), is a still further issue. Is that what you’re now asking about?"

Yes.

Peter Hume: "*Evidence* does not interpret itself."

As you keep saying. But as I pointed out above, I am the only one here who seems to be offering evidence and examples here, and I don't think it unreasonable that I have first bite at interpreting the evidence I give.

Peter Hume: "I have shown reason why [tax] is not [consensual]"

I don't agree, but let us just assume tax isn't consensual for now. And so now you say "since you have already agreed government is less efficient than a competitive market, you agree with me". Not quite. You miss the qualification "competitive market". I have given many examples of where competitive markets do not arise at all, of only do so with the help government intervention.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

rats. sorry about the wrong posting order.

Excessive repetition is not an argument, Peter Hume.

>>The assumption that such a compulsory monopoly provides services better and fairer, than providing them by competing services funded voluntarily, is based on a welter of fallacies that cannot withstand critical scrutiny, and which ultimately resolve into arguing “It is, because it is, because it is.”<<

You have said this so many times, yet you cannot back it up with anything substantial. You refuse to accept that we elect governments, at every level, therefore the process is entirely voluntary - it is the community we have chosen, and the rules that go along with it.

>>If one argues that tax is a non-compulsory or consensual payment, then one is simply wrong in law and in fact, and that’s the end of the discussion.<<

And claiming "the end of the discussion" without either recognizing the points made by others, or providing substance to back up your claim, is simply argument-by-bullying.

You will come to realize one day that your chosen prophet, Mises, has feet of clay, and that the Austrian School debate is useful only from the point of view of platonic idealism.

But in the meantime, my advice is to listen more, and pontificate less.