who said the item produced had to be the same as the item consumed?

That sounds like very fancy doubletalk. MofH said there was no difference between how a corporation works and how a government works re:production and consumption. It really doesn't matter how fancy the wording -- if the government was a self-sustaining, wealth-producing entity, it would not need to tax its people.

Corporations cannot tax people (though they can and do manipulate the government to tax the people for them -- a discussion for another day). They, therefore, must produce a good or a service that is demanded by the people in order to induce people to freely give their money to them in exchange for those services.

If a corporation does not produce a product that is demanded, or the product ceases to be demanded, the corporation either ceases to exist, or finds a new product or service to offer under its corporate label. But it must be profitable to continue to exist. That doesn't mean it needs to produce a surplus -- just a profit -- pay for the cost of production plus labor.

If a government offers services it's because its populace demands that service -- and has decided that the service is one better served by government -- for any number of reasons. But the service is paid for by coersion of the people -- taxation. A completely different arrangement.

So, to that extent -- given your model that a government is the same thing as a corporation because it provides a service that is paid for -- well, hell's bells -- the government could also run a service at a substantial surplus, given your defintions that that which is coerced is the same as that which is volitionally demanded. The government could just demand a greater percentage the people's wealth (a surplus to the expense of the theoretical service). Viola! A profitable business and the government is a net producer!

But it's "profitablility" belies its nature. It is a consumer. It requires taxation. Corporations do not.