What in blazes are you talking about? I'm talking about the hundreds of dollars I personally pay toward the Ponzi scheme called "Social Security", as well as the substantial sum exacted yearly to pay farm subsidies to Rupert Murdoch. Not to mention another several hundred personally paid by me toward bridges to nowhere in Alaska, six-lane highways connecting one-horse towns in the midwest, Mafia-owned road construction crews in PA... need I go on? It may be news to you, but if I decide not to pay the something-like $10K bill they give me yearly, I'll go to jail.
So lets get this straight. You see no moral difference between me having my driveway paved, and someone threatening to imprison me if I don't give them money to pave someone else's driveway? If so, I see why we aren't connecting: you have no morals at all.
Errr, I don't have a crystal ball here, my man. We've been discussing the national defense for a few dozen posts now - if you want to drop the (rather silly) idea of turning the Pentagon over to mall security, I'm all for it, but try to give everyone a heads-up at least.
In any case, if you want to argue for smaller government, you should definitely do so - you'll find precious few here who disagree with you on that. On the other hand, the no-government argument is a non-starter for, oh, about 99.997% of the world, this board included, so rather than slogging through all that to get to a kernel of a sensible argument for smaller government, I suspect that most folks who might be inclined to listen to a smaller-government argument simply tuned you out a while ago. Lead with your strong foot first, is my suggestion - anarcho-capitalism is simply not on the table, regardless of how immoral you find the concept of the state to be. Sorry.