Greetings @sardonyx. I'm glad you got the point (that the state is and always has been based on a false premise), but then you lost it immediately. First off, corporations are products of the state. They cannot exist without state protections, like the limited liability they enjoy. I think you have confused cause and effect when it comes to the state. Don't feel too bad about it though, almost everyone does it these days thanks to this new cultish religion claiming ownership over us.
Secondly, business and employment contracts are not a government, they are voluntarily agreed contracts. You can choose whom you work for, but you are born to the sect of government you live with. You have to work, yes, but that's a prerequisite to survival for any individual.
You seem to ignore the fact there are millions of unelected civil servants who run the state and never get elected or chosen by the people. They are appointed positions, and they decide how to implement policies. Your politicians whom you have faith in are corrupted by the financing they get from their cronies for their political careers. They spend more time campaigning for their positions than they do trying to fix things. To think that such a system works for you and not the corporations you are railing against is lunacy to me.
You present 4 options, 3 of which claim they can rule you without consent, and one of which requires your consent first. So a) nice veiled strawman argument against capitalism, and b) you still haven't shown how any such systems has a right to rule others without consent.
Regarding healthcare, you are assuming a government controlled system is best positioned to deliver to everyone's needs without incurring huge costs that everyone must pay for. We had systems which worked for the vast majority, then the state began micromanagement of the market, and did so to benefit a select few.
Regarding social security, you are demanding people pay into a system that is a ponzi scheme of epic proportion, one which is grossly underfunded to pay out for everyone who has payed in. That money could be invested soundly, or used to pay off existing debts, but no, it must go to the glorious new God you worship to keep safe for someone older to use tomorrow.
As for minimum wage, dude, really? Being told you can't work if you cannot produce labour of X value or greater isn't oppression to you? You think businesses don't pass the costs of that price floor back to the consumer somehow? If it's such a good idea, why not $100/hr? Or a $1000?
The main forms of oppression are not via businesses. What you are allowed to own, eat, smoke, drink, do business with, and how much you pay for all of it, is in some part dictated by the state itself. Taxes, regulations (and their inevitable instances of regulatory capture), prohibition, & forced association have existed for years. Since the PATRIOT act, you can add invasion of privacy and restrictions on free speech to the list of oppressive measures. Because of this new religion, we have dedicated trillions of dollars fighting two wars on abstract nouns (drugs & terror).
Finally, you haven't established how anyone has the right to rule another without explicit consent. Until you can establish how that right exists in a collective but not in the individual, you can't claim the state isn't pretending to be a divine being.
RE: Logic Discussions: Statheism - The New World Religion