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.
They explicitly believed in limiting the power of government as much as possible, consistent with their belief that it was necessary for maintaining the peace.
I note that you have stated that your intent is to remove key elements of that Constititution...
Forest. Trees. You're rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic: the Constitution is already dead, yet you're pretending to defend it. If you want to do something, instead of blowing hot air, then do something about the unconstitutional spending that takes place, rather than continuing the rape using a new method.
All entitlement programs, including social security, medicare and medicaid, are unconstitutional. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated yearly savings: $1 trillion.
All regulatory agencies are unconstitutional: they are departments of the executive branch given legislative powers; the legislature has no authority to delegate legislative power to anyone. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated yearly savings: $30 billion in the federal budget; another $800 billion in indirect costs such as compliance costs.
All economic subsidies, including but not limited to farm and other food price supports, Amtrak, and the Import/Export bank, are unconstitutional. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated annual savings: $650 billion.
All foreign aid is unconstitutional. Eliminate all of it. Now. Estimated annual savings: $25 billion.
If the Constitution were followed, the US budget would be less than $700 billion, instead of about $2.4 trillion. Naturally, taxes would be reduced commensurately. Then we could talk about the best form of tax. What you're doing is supporting about $1.7 trillion in unconstitutional spending, while blathering as if you're defending the Constitution.
Like I said: rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.