"I don't have to assume that "government must have a power to act". The government has that power and uses it. Government is nothing but the means through which the ruling classes enforce their will."
Yes... that was true in Nazi Germany, in the former Soviet Union, and, before them, it was true in the monarchies from which they inherited their concepts of governance... that they claimed to have power by right.
However, this is not Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union... and, in this country, government does not have power unless we surrender it to them. If the Constitution doesn't allocate it... government doesn't have the power. All our human rights depend on that being true, and remaining true... or, when government over-reaches... we depend on getting more of what you've seen happening in St. Louis this summer.
"You can try to arbitrarily separate money, politics, resources, etc from one another but they are all part and parcel of the same package".
There is no reason at all to consider the choices "arbitrary"...
"Nor do I have to *assume* that you are owned by the government because although that ownership is not absolute, for the most parts you are owned..."
I'm not a slave... whether you choose to be one or not.
"That is the very definition of power. A person holds power over another to the extent that he can bend the other person to their will."
That's incorrect... based in your ASSUMPTIONS again, which adopt the language and mindset of monarchy while corrupting the meaning of power to require that it operates only as "one person over another"... which your language both intrinsically, overtly, and subtly accepts... and justifies.
Democrats STILL support slavery and the institutions that enable it... because they're still convinced of the rightness of the relationships we're discussing ?
|
