Well, goodness, the last thing any of us on FR want to do is to give offense to anyone! The very last!
May we assume from your careful definition and defense of the term "anarchist" that you are yourself an anarchist, by your definition of the term?
Actually, no, though I am close. An anarchist believes in a complete absence of government, which undoubtedly is not as bad as some would have us believe by making the term anarchist a perjorative. However, I believe that we do need a referee to iron out disputes and an authority to house criminals and PROTECT OUR BORDERS. However, well over 90 percent of what FedGov AND the States do is utterly out of bounds to them, constitutionally speaking. I would ELIMINATE that 90 plus percent and then we can debate the rest of it. If we could shrink government to the size it was in 1775, I'd pretty well be happy.
Bear in mind that this country originated on the notion that each individual was his own sovereign and that government was granted VERY LIMITED authority to do certain specific things on our behalf and in our names. HOWEVER, there are two caveats to that: First, that the government, acting as our agent, can do NOTHING that is not spelled out in the founding documents (see Amendment 10); and, Second, that we cannot grant ANY power or authority to government which we ourselves do not possess. In other words, if I, as an individual, do not have the legitimate power to compel you to pay for some medical treatment or other for my mother, I cannot grant that authority to a third party (government) to do in my name. I cannot give what is NOT MINE TO GIVE.
Actually, no, though I am close. An anarchist believes in a complete absence of government, which undoubtedly is not as bad as some would have us believe by making the term anarchist a perjorative. However, I believe that we do need a referee to iron out disputes and an authority to house criminals and PROTECT OUR BORDERS. However, well over 90 percent of what FedGov AND the States do is utterly out of bounds to them, constitutionally speaking. I would ELIMINATE that 90 plus percent and then we can debate the rest of it. If we could shrink government to the size it was in 1775, I'd pretty well be happy.
Bear in mind that this country originated on the notion that each individual was his own sovereign and that government was granted VERY LIMITED authority to do certain specific things on our behalf and in our names. HOWEVER, there are two caveats to that: First, that the government, acting as our agent, can do NOTHING that is not spelled out in the founding documents (see Amendment 10); and, Second, that we cannot grant ANY power or authority to government which we ourselves do not possess. In other words, if I, as an individual, do not have the legitimate power to compel you to pay for some medical treatment or other for my mother, I cannot grant that authority to a third party (government) to do in my name. I cannot give what is NOT MINE TO GIVE.
Don't worry about it. Some people just have to pick nits off the elephant in the living room.