Robert Hettinga wrote:

...

A government is just another economic actor. A very large economic actor with lots of guns and a monopoly on force, but an economic actor nonetheless.

No they are not,

Yes, they are. Can you say 'taxes'?

Imposed by a gun.

Can you say 'interstate commerce'?

What about it?

Can you say 'mint money'? Can you say 'federal reserve'?

Can you say government fiat?

Can you say 'FDIC'?

Can you say banking regulation at the point of a gun?

I thought so.

Yep.

...

History shows this.

Really? What history?

The Soviet Union is a prime recent example. British Mercantilism. Governments are ultimately bound to economics in the sense of human behavior and productivity -- the more they deny the nature of microeconomic actors, the quicker they self-destruct. History shows that every dynasty well eventually self-destruct, to think ours won't is foolish. My point is we don't have competitive governments per se, you have a power void that is filled by new government that can be just as hostile to those microeconomic actors. All our government failures have yet to produce a sustainable government.

False distinction. Politics is about control and power

The fundamental laws of economics are supply and demand. As soon as you through force into the equation, it is no longer economic, it is political.

in human society that breaks down to force and money.

The essence of money has no political roots. The essence of money is human productivity and trade. Money is tied to politics currently because it is regulated by force of government and the money *supply* is created by government fiat.

There you go again, confusing privacy with economics...

The discussion *was* *privacy*, or did you completely miss the initial discussion? Privacy (as opposed to secrecy) is about discretionary disclosure of information. To invade privacy is to remove or prevent that discretion. There is an economic cost of doing so, and an economic benefit. Corporations are bound by those economics, whereas government can mandate transparency by whim and gun.

...

use coercive force today preventing privacy, but government is their instrument of force.

True, but that isn't a function of regulation per se only the particular type of regulation that we have implimented.

It is the *nature* of regulation. The end element of any regulation is a gun. Government is a natural instrument of collective legalized force by any group that can influence it, and to think it can't and won't be influenced denies human nature in regards to power. Every government is despotic by nature, force corrupts.

...

They have a *legal* monopoly on force (within a state).

No, they don't. It is perfectly legal for an individual to own a weapon.

The legal monopoly on the *initiation* of force. And in fact you have very little freedom (eternally diminishing) to obtain potential force (arms) and use it in a *reactionary* manner. You have absolutely *no* freedom to use it reactionary against government (which is in the face of the 4th).

There is also a clear distinction between the local police, your state police, federal agents, military, etc.

It is an irrelevant distinction in this case, it is all government. They do not use force against each other as any sort of competitive balance.

No it doesn't. It points to the fact that individuals want to participate in some activity that some other party doesn't want to occur.

General democratic consensus is highly controlled by media and government propaganda (if they are not one in the same). What is the underlying motivation? Is hemp illegal because people don't want people to smoke weed, or because of the cotton lobby? Is the war on drugs so unbreakable because people don't want people taking drugs, or because the government funds black operations with its sales, uses it to confiscate private property, and as a sounding post for increased powers? Do people not want free banking, or does the government wish to protects its fiat currency and artificial stability flying in the face of economic reality?

It does not imply that the regulating party wants the potential income from those activities.

Money or power, more often than most people think.

Further more, even in a free-market there will exist black markets.

Provided you don't corrupt the meaning of free-market to include any possible black market, then yes, there will *always* be a black market. It can be made rather insignificant however.

The aspect of a free-market is that there is no consequence from such actions (unless you want to admit to allowing corporations to have their own hit squads).

And again you pervert the meaning of free market. I'm tired arguing that subject with you, go read a book. Matt