Let me put this in the most Austrian Economic way possible, so that maybe you, and the others that will see this repost, can understand. I am of the belief that there are certain goods and services that satisfy the preferences of all people which are best provided by cooperative action between individuals. We call the cooperative individuals “the state” and we call the money that they pay for these goods and services “taxes.” This is not an argument for big government. This is not an argument for exorbitant taxes. This is a true statement even down to the tiniest most decentralized state you can imagine. The state could be the size of a neighborhood, and this would still be true. Thoughts? Willing to hear your side. I’m so close to being an ancap, please get me there daddy 😩 

 The revolutionary generation, who experienced coercive taxation, will be able to distinguish that from voluntary payment to a collective caretaker. However, after a few generations, the distinction between voluntary taxation, which has now become rote, and traditional “government” taxation will be gone. Many people will be living under a government they call by another name. I see the ancap future as very important clearing of underbrush, but a totally new way of being. We do tend towards at least a little government. 

 So I think you are arguing in favor of taxation then? The critique is “how much” and “what it’s spent on” but not whether it should exist, no? 

 I’m taking the approach of what is, less what should be. Historically, we always tend towards some taxation. I’m not convinced we will avoid this pitfall through competition, so sadly we must put some work into what and how much