There you go again, DakotaT.
Ok, time for you to put your brains where your mouth is....
Please provide some evidence that government produces more value than it costs. I'll even allow you to provide "indirect" benefits that come from "public goods". I'll also allow you to count as "benefit" any "other costs" that are saved as a result of having government do X, Y, or Z for us. You can do it for government overall, or just for the feds if you want.
I'll only require three things of you. (These are what I would require of one of my undergraduate econ majors, and you're a heckuva lot smarter than most of them.)
1. The evidence must be "quantitative" or otherwise
empirical. No mere waving of one's arms about all the things government does for A, B, C, and D. You have to put a number on the benefit and you have to compare it to the amount of spending required to get that benefit. (As a bona fide producer of real economic value (i.e., that nectar of yours!) in excess of the costs of production, I know you know the difference between expenditure to make something (e.g. your labor and overhead costs) and the benefit created by said expenditure (in your case, a good measure of the benefit of much honey is the price people will pay for it).
2. If the benefit is indirect (i.e., we pay government for X and therefore we get more of the valuable thing Y), you must explain the logic whereby more X leads to more Y AND provide
empirical evidence of how much X gets how much Y.
3. If the expenditure works primarily a "transfer payment" (i.e., it takes $$$ out of Peter's pocket, e.g., through taxes, and puts it in Paul's pocket), you must provide quantitative evidence that the extra value that Paul will produce over and above the costs of administering that transfer payment (i.e., the IRS and its enforcers, extra CPAs and tax lawyers and lobbyists that Peter will hire to reduce the transfer, extra CPAs and lawyers and lobbyists that Paul will pay to increase the transfer.
I'll even let you get the help of anyone else here considers themselves something other than a "bat shit libertarian" or "even crazier anarchist" to help you out. I'm not sure that allows you to use the slayer of zombies to help you or not, but I'm pretty sure it allows you to draw from anyone else here other than yours truly. Even vikesrule (who, except for that ND v. MN thing, I think you pretty much agree with) and Formo (who, I'm pretty sure you don't).
If you, by yourself or together with the massed intelligence of PackersHome-1, can do all three of the above provide credible sources for your numbers other than a political speech, ad, or editorial ... heck, if you can provide empirical evidence for two of the three, I'll abandon anarchism and vote for whichever Presidential candidate you wish in 2016.
So, yes, I'm giving you until the 12:01 a.m. on the first Tuesday of November, 2016.
I am not, however, going to hold my breadth.
Go to it.
[grin1]
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)