All Governments are Criminal Organizations

I will be using the term "corporation" to refer to organizations and institutions which may or may not meet the criteria of "government", as the term "corporation" literally means a "body of people". This can include any type of corporation - municipalities, nation-states, for-profit, non-profit, state-chartered, etc... (ie, all governments are corporations, but not all corporations are governments). This is to more easily compare institutions which do not meet the definitions above, and to clearly demonstrate the myth of legitimacy, and the problem with arbitrary exemptions. Also, If you have an example of a corporation which meets the criteria provided, please provide these examples in the early rounds, so that I may address them. At the very least, I would request that no examples be provided in the last round, as that would not leave me the opportunity to address anything I find to be incorrect.Please do not confuse "society" with "government". Before I begin, I would like to state that I accept the necessity of society, community, and of many of the services that these corporations labeled as "government" provide. If a corporation issues a "law", it is making a rule and promoting the obedience of that rule with "law enforcement" (both attributes are listed in the definition of government that we have accepted for this debate). Law enforcement is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of the goal of obedience. The contradiction and arbitrary exemption:The use of violence an intimidation, without arbitrary exemptions, is the core principle behind criminal law. To prove the statement "All Governments are Criminal Institutions" to be wrong, you must find a government which does not have laws prohibiting violence and aggression.If a corporation claims a "monopoly right over a geographic area", it is claiming that, on some level, it "owns" the land, and, if you move past a claimed boundary on the earth, the corporation claims the "right" to use the above-mentioned violence and intimidation in the pursuit of its goals. We can also not call being born into a geographical area as "consent" or acceptance of the legitimacy of that claim any more than being born into slavery is consent to being a slave.The contradiction and arbitrary exemption:Claiming a monopoly right is inherently an exemption. It is the statement that the corporation can engage in X, but any other corporation who engages in X on their "turf" is subject to the same violence and intimidation described earlier. To prove the statement "All Governments are Criminal Institutions" to be wrong, you must find a government which does not have laws prohibiting violence and aggression, racketeering, or uphold the property rights of individuals.If a corporation collects "taxes", we must assume that it is not voluntary. Any "voluntary" payment of services would simply be called a payment, and any "voluntary" contribution to society would simply be called "charity". Taxation is based exclusively on where you reside or do business, ie, if you reside or do business within the geographic area that the institution claim, this amounts to "tacit consent" (ie, not consensual) to pay for products and services. We can not accept this as "voluntary" because people choose to stay in that geographic region any more than we can accept the Mafia's collection of "protection money" as voluntary simply because a shopkeeper chooses not to move out of the neighborhood. The contradiction and arbitrary exemption:To take, under threat of force, the product of somebody else's labor, against their consent is "theft". To prove the statement "All Governments are Criminal Institutions" to be wrong, you must find a government which does not have laws prohibiting theft.The myth of legitimacy and the paradox of exemption:The core difference between 'government' corporations and other corporations is the idea that these claims are somehow "legitimate", ie, that other corporations can not do these things without being in violation of the law, but institutions which are perceived as 'legitimate", or labeled as "government", can do these things without being in violation of the law. The myth of "legitimacy" is itself an example of "arbitrary exemptions". In essence, it is a matter of faith. You either believe that a corporation has the legitimate right to use violence against you or you do not. You either believe that a corporation has the legitimate right to take the product of your labor against your will or you do not. You either believe that a corporation has a legitimate claim to a geographical area or you do not, but the claim itself does not make it true, and the fact that this belief is held by so many also does not make it true (democracy itself is an appeal to the ad populum fallacy).In fact, faith is REQUIRED to accept such corporations as legitimate, because, as I have demonstrated, the attributes of these corporations are inherently inconsistent (ie, self-contradictory), and a concept must, at the very least, be internally consistent for it to qualify as 'legitimate'.