Your fears are overblown. Remember: Hobbes was a moron. Hobbes was a moron.
To an anarchist like you have claimed for yourself...
Anarcho-capitalist, please. "Anarchists" are almost all mob-rule socialists.
...any government at all is collaboration with oppressors.
Certainly. But I'll gladly take the minarchy designed by the founders, if I could get it. What I won't do, under any circumstances, is repeat the lie that our present government is what the founders created. The Constitution is long dead. Its primary use today is as a facade to legitimate out-and-out totalitarianism.
Anarchy is just a formula that leads to a tyranny of the warlord...
In one sense I agree with you: people are so stupid, that if you gave them freedom, they would become utterly terrified, and run around in a panic trying to figure out who's their master. People are not ready for freedom, and so in a sense don't deserve it. Franklin's cynical "if you can keep it" was prophetic.
On the other hand, you are amazingly confident that you know exactly what would happen if we instituted something completely unprecedented in the world. Since your ability to prophesy the effect of even minor changes in tax law is so poor, why would you believe that you can so confidently predict the outcome of a completely revolutionary society?
As a conservative...
The left-right dichotomy is a fiction. The true dichotomy is liberty versus state control. You and your leftist "foes" both believe in state control; you merely bicker about which rules to impose on the unwilling.
Nevertheless, I've already stipulated that I'm perfectly happy to settle for a minarchist republic. You've ignored that; perhaps because you don't know what "minarchist" means. It means "that government is best which governs least." It means reducing government to its bare minimum. The founders believed in that. You don't.
Nevertheless, I've already stipulated that I'm perfectly happy to settle for a minarchist republic. You've ignored that; perhaps because you don't know what "minarchist" means. It means "that government is best which governs least." It means reducing government to its bare minimum. The founders believed in that. You don't.
The founders believed in a structured form of govenment delimited by the Constitution they established.
I note that you have stated that your intent is to remove key elements of that Constititution, i.e. taxation, as represented in Article 2, Section 8 clause 1 of that Constitution.
"taxation is theft"
"You believe in their fundamental right to pass laws. I believe it's high time to abolish it."
and its basis in the governing bodies that it provides and grant of express authority to enact law within the section 8 enumerated powers to do so.
Since that is undoubtedly your stand, to claim:
"But I'll gladly take the minarchy designed by the founders, if I could get it"
Is ingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest on its face. Especially in view of your demands to through the baby out with the washwater. In that light your statements regarding your minarchist republ.
Nevertheless, I've already stipulated that I'm perfectly happy to settle for a minarchist republic. You've ignored that; perhaps because you don't know what "minarchist" means. It means "that government is best which governs least." It means reducing government to its bare minimum.
The founders believed in that.
What is obvious is that you don't as you reject the basis of the government they did establish and provide for with the institution of government under their authorship of the Constitution.
You don't.
I would suggest you not succumb to the pretense of reading others minds and declaring what they believe in. What I believe in is the restoration of our government back to the boundries laid out in the Constitution regardless of your attempts to build a strawman by characterizing my positions otherwise.
On the other hand, you are amazingly confident that you know exactly what would happen if we instituted something completely unprecedented in the world. Since your ability to prophesy the effect of even minor changes in tax law is so poor,
Retail sales taxes are hardly unprecidented in the world, in fact we have 45 five examples of there successful implementations in the states, many of which have economies in excess of most nations in the world. Texas being a fine example of not only using retail sales tax but managing to do without income taxes as well, as is called for in the FairTax legislation.
FairTax just implements what has already been shown to be a sucessful formula for funding the basic functions of a government. The FairTax legislation simply takes what has been successful in the political laboratories of the states and implements it on a national scale using state expertise in administering sales tax systems to administer the same on the national level.
why would you believe that you can so confidently predict the outcome of a completely revolutionary society?
LOL, talk about slipshod logic and fallacy this really takes the cake. Just looking at the result of such revolutionary societies that have many examples throughout the world. Anarchy leads to a dead end.
The nasty part of revolutions is there is no way to control the outcome to a good result as by definition there is no-one responsible for steering the ship away from the shoals. The general path of anarchy usually ends up in tyranny and dictatorships in one form or another regardless of the expressed intents of its proponents in initiation revolution in the first place.
Not interested in the least in going down your path. Seen to many examples of anachy and where it leads in the world.