Aaron Kinney instructs us on using analogies to argue against the democratic process.
One analogy I like to use is soft drinks.
I compare the soft drink market to the government.
I ask them: "what if there was only one soft drink brand available to purchase? And what if you didnt like the taste of it? Do you think it would be fair for the soft drink manufacturer to 1) force the market to only offer its product and no others? and 2) force you to buy their soft drink either at a flat rate every week (say one six pack) or as a percentage of your income?"
The answer to this is always "no". I then ask: "isnt the competitive nature of the soft drink market wonderful? You can choose from so many flavors, and prices are low and flavors are great because of competition. Do you agree that competition is Superior?" 99% of the time, the answer I get to this question is "yes".
Then I shoot for the goal: "So wouldnt it be better if the "government" were replaced by competing companies that were 1) unable to force you to buy their product, 2) unable to prevent competitors from entering the market, and 3) totally reliant on consentual consumer purchasing of its products for its market share?
While at this point they often stammer and are reluctant to admit the logic, I have already won anyway. They have hung themselves with their own noose. And its all thanks to soda pop.
As a comment, I always find it weird that people are so adamant against monopolies, and yet see nothing wrong with the existence of the state or "state companies" (or as we call them in Canada, Crown companies). Once again, people are able to reason perfectly rationally about scenarios until they hit the state, towards which they have a total blind spot. All monopolies are bad, but a monopoly of FORCE, the worst thing possible ? Ah, that one's all right.