Anti-politics

[J’raxis 270145]

Getting and keeping people like Don Gorman, Joel Winters, Dan Itse, Dick Marple, &c., in office, is pretty important—probably necessary—for some of those victories.

But you're crediting the FSP with those victories, and I'm saying perhaps the FSP persuaded for less government, but are you crediting the FSP with getting the right people in office to make those victories possible?

I'm not sure of the history of how all of them were elected. Joel is explicitly a freestater who was elected to office. Gorman is a Libertarian. I believe Itse and Marple are just independently liberty-minded.

And then even if you say "yes", we're back to this:

You can probably find plenty of anecdotes where someone's pet issue was addressed in some way by their guy/gal but what new laws did they create or expand in other areas? Who lost in that game? It's massively complex but the one thing that's clear is the trend- growth of government.

which I'm sure is the premise behind the libertarian party's pledge for candidates to only ever vote in the direction of more liberty and why many of them who vote will only vote for someone who's taken the pledge.

In the cases of the people I mentioned, it's not one or two "pet" issues, it's an overall voting theme. Are there bills some of these reps have voted for that could be considered to be aggression? Probably, but the overarching theme is support of liberty. This is just like Ron Paul: There are one or two examples where he'll maintain the current aggression, or even expand it, but everything else he stands for is pro-liberty. (This isn't "lesser evilism" to me—Lesser evilism means supporting a candidate who is only slightly better than another, e.g., supporting Romney over Hillary because there are a couple issues he's a hair better on. Both candidates are anti-liberty. One just happens to line up with a few libertarian values by chance.)

To only vote for candidates who are 100% pro-liberty, to treat the ones that are 98% there as if they're 0% there, is yet another example of making the best the enemy of the good.

[Auntie Republicrat]

It would seem 'government' is but a 'tool'..like a hammer, in the hands of Nitwitt Mitt, Hillbilly, etcetercrats galore it can be used poorly..it can injure, destroy, etc.. but in the hands of maybe say, Ron Paul (and other like-minds) it might be used to build a useful, decent, house, etc.

Remember, 'government' is no more or less than the people who make it up..and as all people differ..so, it seems, will all 'governments' differ!.. 

[J’raxis 270145]

It would seem 'government' is but a 'tool'..like a hammer, in the hands of Nitwitt Mitt, Hillbilly, etcetercrats galore it can be used poorly..it can injure, destroy, etc.. but in the hands of maybe say, Ron Paul (and other like-minds) it might be used to build a useful, decent, house, etc.

Remember, 'government' is no more or less than the people who make it up..and as all people differ..so, it seems, will all 'governments' differ!.. 

Right. The government is just the apparatus of the ruling class anyway; it is they, and the abstractions they conjure up to justify their rule ("the State"), that are evil. Take the apparatus out of the hands of those who use it for aggression, and use it to dismantle itself.

[Russell Kanning]

it's a specialized tool ... it can only be used for distruction

[dysurian]

it's a specialized tool ... it can only be used for distruction

Exactly! Like Tolkien's "One Ring," to describe a similar metaphor used in the Anarchy In Your Head comic that tipped off a good portion of this debate on this thread.

[John Edward Mercier]

It would seem 'government' is but a 'tool'..like a hammer, in the hands of Nitwitt Mitt, Hillbilly, etcetercrats galore it can be used poorly..it can injure, destroy, etc.. but in the hands of maybe say, Ron Paul (and other like-minds) it might be used to build a useful, decent, house, etc.

Remember, 'government' is no more or less than the people who make it up..and as all people differ..so, it seems, will all 'governments' differ!.. 

Right. The government is just the apparatus of the ruling class anyway; it is they, and the abstractions they conjure up to justify their rule ("the State"), that are evil. Take the apparatus out of the hands of those who use it for aggression, and use it to dismantle itself.

At times it is, and other times not.
It is largely the apparatus of that small portion of citizenry that vote.

[MaineShark]

it's a specialized tool ... it can only be used for distruction

So?  Use it against itself...

Joe

[dysurian]

it's a specialized tool ... it can only be used for distruction

So?  Use it against itself...

Joe

Use the government to tear down the government? But I think that's like saying we should use the Chicago Cubs power as a baseball team to make sure the Chicago Cubs are disempowered as a baseball team and lose their division this year (something I know Cubs fans can agree is actually happening )

And that's the whole point I think many of us have been trying to make. You can't use government to dismantle itself any more than you could use the mafia to dismantle itself. The primary driving force behind the existence of any government is morality. Since many many many people think that our government is moral, it's able to exist. Taxation, welfare, wars, inflation, vice "crimes," all these things are effects of the system, not causes. Taxation is not (as has been implied by other posts in this thread) the source of the power of government. The source of the power of government is derived from its moral acceptance by most people. This is why I think that the most effective method to get rid of the government is striking at the root of morality, not tearing off the regenerating leaves and branches of specific policy.

Stopping paying taxes, moving to the woods, and living off the grid is not going to pull down the government. When Bob Woodsman moves out to the boonies and stops paying taxes, they just charge a fraction of a penny more to everyone else. I bring up this example because I think Lex suggested I do this to remain moral, and I haven't properly addressed it yet. Taxation is an effect of the government not its cause. While he's out there Bob Woodsman's spending ENORMOUS amounts of time tending to his garden, his solar pannels, his livestock, and his home in general that he has basically no time whatsoever to talk to other people. But talking to other people is exactly what needs to be done to sweep out the morality from under government in the first place! I know for sure it's what brought me around to this position. In fact, communication (whether it's podcasts, books, articles, the internet, conversation with friends) is the only thing that brought any of us around to these views in the first place (unless you were just born an continued to be a libertarian/anarchist you whole life). That's why I stress the importance of communication of the message above all else. It's how we all got here in the first place.

Moving to the woods and living off the grid can spark some conversations, but there's only so much time to elaborate when you've got so much work to do to keep your household running. Legislating libertarian ideas can spark conversation, but a lot less than sparking the conversation in other ways. How many regular non-political people you know are talking legislation on a daily basis? Morality is discussed constantly, whether implicitly or explicitly, by everyday people. Also, it's confusing for people to have an ethical idea legislated to them, rather than discussed with them. It's not as easy to convince someone that your position is actually a moral one when you need to use the force of legislation to impose that moral position on them. Additionally, it comes across as positional. Instead of just a democrat-republican dynamic, you're adding a third parameter of "libertarian." To most people, libertarian politics will just look like another positional preference. The philosophy behind libertarianism isn't one of preference, though, it's a moral position. It's not "what I want to happen," it's "what I know to be morally right." It confuses people to frame it as another preferential political choice, and I think that could be dangerous to the message as a whole.

[Auntie Republicrat]

...ok, shazaam!, 'anarchism' reigns..and, for example, YOU wake up soon afterwards to find that the garbage dump mafia has decided to use what you understand as part of 'your property' to dump stinking toxic filth..

..don't tell me, I should just move..right, 'anarchists?'

...yes, 'anarchism' may be the highest form in the 'evolution' of human systems..but look around TODAY..look at all the Republicrat monkeys!! 

(maybe 'the anarchists' have been hitting the dvd's a little too hard!) 

[MaineShark]

Use the government to tear down the government? But I think that's like saying we should use the Chicago Cubs power as a baseball team to make sure the Chicago Cubs are disempowered as a baseball team and lose their division this year (something I know Cubs fans can agree is actually happening )

And that's the whole point I think many of us have been trying to make. You can't use government to dismantle itself any more than you could use the mafia to dismantle itself. The primary driving force behind the existence of any government is morality. Since many many many people think that our government is moral, it's able to exist. Taxation, welfare, wars, inflation, vice "crimes," all these things are effects of the system, not causes. Taxation is not (as has been implied by other posts in this thread) the source of the power of government. The source of the power of government is derived from its moral acceptance by most people. This is why I think that the most effective method to get rid of the government is striking at the root of morality, not tearing off the regenerating leaves and branches of specific policy.

As I've said before, you can't use the government to eliminate itself.  But you can certainly use it to weaken itself to the point that it can be eliminated by other means.

Let's take your mafia example.  The mob is in your town, and the shopkeepers pay them tribute because they have no real choice.  Some actually think the mob is doing a good thing - this particular mob boss likes children, so he makes sure there is free candy and nice playgrounds and other things for them, and they maintain the roads nicely.  All know that they cannot hope to defeat the mob in armed conflict, because too many of their neighbors would chicken out or turn traitor for the right price.

What are you to do?  How about you get a different "family" to fight the current one?  You don't like either, but the resulting series of "hits" and such weaken them both dramatically.  Now your neighbors constitute a force that can stand up and tell them to get lost.

Stopping paying taxes, moving to the woods, and living off the grid is not going to pull down the government. When Bob Woodsman moves out to the boonies and stops paying taxes, they just charge a fraction of a penny more to everyone else. I bring up this example because I think Lex suggested I do this to remain moral, and I haven't properly addressed it yet. Taxation is an effect of the government not its cause. While he's out there Bob Woodsman's spending ENORMOUS amounts of time tending to his garden, his solar pannels, his livestock, and his home in general that he has basically no time whatsoever to talk to other people. But talking to other people is exactly what needs to be done to sweep out the morality from under government in the first place! I know for sure it's what brought me around to this position. In fact, communication (whether it's podcasts, books, articles, the internet, conversation with friends) is the only thing that brought any of us around to these views in the first place (unless you were just born an continued to be a libertarian/anarchist you whole life). That's why I stress the importance of communication of the message above all else. It's how we all got here in the first place.

But you're supporting the government.  With tax money.  I don't care what talking you do.  Clearly, you want to have the government around, because you are choosing to pay taxes.

Makes about as much sense as saying that involvement in politics for the purpose of damaging the government is "support."  Both are choices we make, because we believe that we can do more to reach our goals in this manner.

You choose to pay taxes because the alternative takes you out of contact with those you hope to talk to and potentially convert.  Others choose to get involved with the political process because the alternative limits their ability to pit the government against itself for the purpose of weakening it.

Joe

[dysurian]

Use the government to tear down the government? But I think that's like saying we should use the Chicago Cubs power as a baseball team to make sure the Chicago Cubs are disempowered as a baseball team and lose their division this year (something I know Cubs fans can agree is actually happening )

And that's the whole point I think many of us have been trying to make. You can't use government to dismantle itself any more than you could use the mafia to dismantle itself. The primary driving force behind the existence of any government is morality. Since many many many people think that our government is moral, it's able to exist. Taxation, welfare, wars, inflation, vice "crimes," all these things are effects of the system, not causes. Taxation is not (as has been implied by other posts in this thread) the source of the power of government. The source of the power of government is derived from its moral acceptance by most people. This is why I think that the most effective method to get rid of the government is striking at the root of morality, not tearing off the regenerating leaves and branches of specific policy.

As I've said before, you can't use the government to eliminate itself.  But you can certainly use it to weaken itself to the point that it can be eliminated by other means.

Let's take your mafia example.  The mob is in your town, and the shopkeepers pay them tribute because they have no real choice.  Some actually think the mob is doing a good thing - this particular mob boss likes children, so he makes sure there is free candy and nice playgrounds and other things for them, and they maintain the roads nicely.  All know that they cannot hope to defeat the mob in armed conflict, because too many of their neighbors would chicken out or turn traitor for the right price.

What are you to do?  How about you get a different "family" to fight the current one?  You don't like either, but the resulting series of "hits" and such weaken them both dramatically.  Now your neighbors constitute a force that can stand up and tell them to get lost.

This example shows how other governments take one another over. The new "family" doesn't go away when the old one is defeated, and the new "family" always grows exponentially (take the USA, for example). Your example shows what others have suggested; that one mob group can be beaten down by another mob group. What I'm looking for is there to not be any mob groups around. Nobody is suggesting that people create a separate competing government to take down the NH or Federal government with. They're suggesting getting elected to the current government to effect change. That's why my examples around the mafia always suggest you need to infiltrate an existing group and turn it against its main purposes. That's the parallel we have to work with if this example is to mean anything.

To take another tack, let's go back to my Chicago Cubs example. I said using the government against itself is like using the Cubs to beat the Cubs at baseball. You switched the example to using the Braves to defeat the Cubs at baseball. Do you see the difference?

As I've said a few times. I can absolutely see how certain things can be cut away from the fringes of legislation, and how other things can be stopped by libertarian legislation. I haven't heard an adequate answer to how the big things of school, welfare, farm subsidies, and such (the things that justify government in the minds of most people) will be dealt with politically. If the political solutions are limited to slowing or stopping the growth of government in NH (already the slowest-growing government around), then I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed. If small (albeit neat) victories like no zoning, manicurist licensing, limitations on searches, etc. are possible, I still feel like my efforts are better spent spreading the ideas of freedom as far and as wide and as quickly as possible. If government solutions can take down big, entrenched institutions like welfare, homeland security, and the war on drugs...well then we're talking! I'm interested, but I don't see how it'll work without a fundamental shift in how people think in general. That's why that's what I want to work on.

But you're supporting the government.  With tax money.  I don't care what talking you do.  Clearly, you want to have the government around, because you are choosing to pay taxes.

Makes about as much sense as saying that involvement in politics for the purpose of damaging the government is "support."  Both are choices we make, because we believe that we can do more to reach our goals in this manner.

You choose to pay taxes because the alternative takes you out of contact with those you hope to talk to and potentially convert.  Others choose to get involved with the political process because the alternative limits their ability to pit the government against itself for the purpose of weakening it.

Joe

Saying I want government is around seems to me to be a direct attack. It's pretty clear at this point that I don't, and I feel like your statement was just intended to get my goat and provoke a response. I just wanted to be clear that I noticed it as such. If there's a problem with my logic, I'll be glad to address it. I don't "voluntarily" choose support the government through taxation any more than I "voluntarily" choose support a tapeworm in my intestines. I just want to be clear that the supposed choice to pay taxes is a little different from any other sort of thing we would call a "choice." The choice to go shopping at the mall is a choice in the full sense of the word. I can either go shopping at the mall, or I can go shopping at Wal-Mart, or I can just stay home and not go shopping at all. In the case of taxation, it's a little different, fundamentally, because there's a gun to my head. The supposed choice with taxation is to pay taxes, or to be eligible for imprisonment or, if necessary, murder. There's no choice to not pay taxes and remain free because the government exists to point guns at us. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you "Give me some money or I'll blow your brains out," it would be pretty clear that I'm giving you a couple of possible options, but to call it a free choice would be to pervert the meaning of the word choice.

I realize that you can't eat chocolate cake every day and choose be healthy, but that's because of the laws of human biology. They're pretty much unquestionable. The reason I get shot if I don't pay my taxes is because of an imposed law, arbitrarily made up by some guys and implemented in 1913. The nature of income tax is completely different from that of human biology. One is unavoidable, the other is forcefully imposed at the point of a gun. If I had to make every decision in my life with a gun at my temple, we could scarcely call my decisions choices.

[MaineShark]

This example shows how other governments take one another over. The new "family" doesn't go away when the old one is defeated, and the new "family" always grows exponentially (take the USA, for example). Your example shows what others have suggested; that one mob group can be beaten down by another mob group. What I'm looking for is there to not be any mob groups around. Nobody is suggesting that people create a separate competing government to take down the NH or Federal government with. They're suggesting getting elected to the current government to effect change. That's why my examples around the mafia always suggest you need to infiltrate an existing group and turn it against its main purposes. That's the parallel we have to work with if this example is to mean anything.

To take another tack, let's go back to my Chicago Cubs example. I said using the government against itself is like using the Cubs to beat the Cubs at baseball. You switched the example to using the Braves to defeat the Cubs at baseball. Do you see the difference?

"The government" is not a homogeneous entity.  It has many facets and power blocs within it.  That's the trouble of a system based on power-mad nutcases... they all want to be top dog.

As I've said a few times. I can absolutely see how certain things can be cut away from the fringes of legislation, and how other things can be stopped by libertarian legislation. I haven't heard an adequate answer to how the big things of school, welfare, farm subsidies, and such (the things that justify government in the minds of most people) will be dealt with politically. If the political solutions are limited to slowing or stopping the growth of government in NH (already the slowest-growing government around), then I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed. If small (albeit neat) victories like no zoning, manicurist licensing, limitations on searches, etc. are possible, I still feel like my efforts are better spent spreading the ideas of freedom as far and as wide and as quickly as possible. If government solutions can take down big, entrenched institutions like welfare, homeland security, and the war on drugs...well then we're talking! I'm interested, but I don't see how it'll work without a fundamental shift in how people think in general. That's why that's what I want to work on.

Look at the support Ron Paul is getting.  He might not be perfect, but it certainly demonstrates a great deal of dissatisfaction with the status quo among many of the populace.

Saying I want government is around seems to me to be a direct attack. It's pretty clear at this point that I don't, and I feel like your statement was just intended to get my goat and provoke a response. I just wanted to be clear that I noticed it as such. If there's a problem with my logic, I'll be glad to address it.

Someone has a bit of trouble understanding sarcasm...   The rolling eyes should have done it, but apparently not...

I don't "voluntarily" choose support the government through taxation any more than I "voluntarily" choose support a tapeworm in my intestines. I just want to be clear that the supposed choice to pay taxes is a little different from any other sort of thing we would call a "choice." The choice to go shopping at the mall is a choice in the full sense of the word. I can either go shopping at the mall, or I can go shopping at Wal-Mart, or I can just stay home and not go shopping at all. In the case of taxation, it's a little different, fundamentally, because there's a gun to my head. The supposed choice with taxation is to pay taxes, or to be eligible for imprisonment or, if necessary, murder. There's no choice to not pay taxes and remain free because the government exists to point guns at us. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you "Give me some money or I'll blow your brains out," it would be pretty clear that I'm giving you a couple of possible options, but to call it a free choice would be to pervert the meaning of the word choice.

I realize that you can't eat chocolate cake every day and choose be healthy, but that's because of the laws of human biology. They're pretty much unquestionable. The reason I get shot if I don't pay my taxes is because of an imposed law, arbitrarily made up by some guys and implemented in 1913. The nature of income tax is completely different from that of human biology. One is unavoidable, the other is forcefully imposed at the point of a gun. If I had to make every decision in my life with a gun at my temple, we could scarcely call my decisions choices.

You can go live in the woods.  No taxation.  Simple, right?

Or you can recognize that the pre-existing condition of duress applies to voting as much as it applies to taxation.  In neither case can you be morally responsible for the acts of the government, because they already have the gun to your head.  How you choose to defend yourself is up to you.

If paying taxes (defending yourself against attack by paying tribute) is valid, then so is defense that involves using the political methods of the system against itself.  You can't have it both ways.  If one is legitimate, so is the other.

Joe

[dysurian]

Saying I want government is around seems to me to be a direct attack. It's pretty clear at this point that I don't, and I feel like your statement was just intended to get my goat and provoke a response. I just wanted to be clear that I noticed it as such. If there's a problem with my logic, I'll be glad to address it.

Someone has a bit of trouble understanding sarcasm...   The rolling eyes should have done it, but apparently not...

See, I think you've just done it again. By saying things like, "Someone has a bit of trouble understanding sarcasm...the rolling eyes should have done it, but apparently not..." you're basically calling me an idiot. The rolling eyes seemed to me to just add to the antagonism. If you really thought I was an idiot, you'd explain it to me patiently. If you wanted to piss me off, you'd say pretty much what you did. Using sarcasm to discredit my position seemed to me like an emotional attack, not a logical one. I'm being as careful as possible to not let this descend into a round of the sort of emotional attacks message boards are prone to, because I find this topic to be extremely serious and important. That's not to say I don't think there's room for humor (which I've been using a bit of)...but sarcasm isn't just humor, it's humor directed to get an emotional rise out of someone. I only pointed it out because I didn't want you to think you had made any sort of argument against my position by saying that I wanted the government around.

I don't "voluntarily" choose support the government through taxation any more than I "voluntarily" choose support a tapeworm in my intestines. I just want to be clear that the supposed choice to pay taxes is a little different from any other sort of thing we would call a "choice." The choice to go shopping at the mall is a choice in the full sense of the word. I can either go shopping at the mall, or I can go shopping at Wal-Mart, or I can just stay home and not go shopping at all. In the case of taxation, it's a little different, fundamentally, because there's a gun to my head. The supposed choice with taxation is to pay taxes, or to be eligible for imprisonment or, if necessary, murder. There's no choice to not pay taxes and remain free because the government exists to point guns at us. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you "Give me some money or I'll blow your brains out," it would be pretty clear that I'm giving you a couple of possible options, but to call it a free choice would be to pervert the meaning of the word choice.

I realize that you can't eat chocolate cake every day and choose be healthy, but that's because of the laws of human biology. They're pretty much unquestionable. The reason I get shot if I don't pay my taxes is because of an imposed law, arbitrarily made up by some guys and implemented in 1913. The nature of income tax is completely different from that of human biology. One is unavoidable, the other is forcefully imposed at the point of a gun. If I had to make every decision in my life with a gun at my temple, we could scarcely call my decisions choices.

You can go live in the woods.  No taxation.  Simple, right?

Or you can recognize that the pre-existing condition of duress applies to voting as much as it applies to taxation.  In neither case can you be morally responsible for the acts of the government, because they already have the gun to your head.  How you choose to defend yourself is up to you.

If paying taxes (defending yourself against attack by paying tribute) is valid, then so is defense that involves using the political methods of the system against itself.  You can't have it both ways.  If one is legitimate, so is the other.

Joe

There is still a difference between taxation and voting, even if they are both functions of government. One you get shot for, the other you don't. There's a lot more choice involved in voting, because you get to choose to not vote if you don't want to. I agree that how you choose to defend yourself is up to you. I'm not saying that voting is immoral anymore, because I'm not completely sure if it is (though I still think it's less effective to reach my goals than other methods).

I think it's important to also say that I don't feel like government is the final problem in society. I think this might be where our views differ. I believe government is an effect of a sick society, and that's why I'm interested in working with people. I realize "society" is a concept and not an actual thing I can touch, but it's still a word that means something. I've been called out in this thread for using concepts like "society," and I just want to make clear that I don't think there's this actual thing out there called "society," but that it's an effective label to describe an "aggregation of people." Just like "forest" is a helpful description of a "goodly bunch of trees."

[JJ]

I respect the idea of Anarchy and those who are active in spreading the corresponding philosohy.  Without a doubt it is the most pro-liberty idea possible. 


The part that is most troubling is those individuals who will not participate in the system but continue to fund it.  As a matter of personal responsibility I believe that if you are paying for something you should express how you wish your funds to be spent.  Clearly I am referring to voting and calling representatives.  You pay taxes, you vote, they ought to go hand.  Even it you write in a vote for abolish government or something to that effect. 

Paying for something you do not acknowledge is a bit backwards.  It is like having a sports competition and not showing up to the game because you don't acknowledge the other team.  Naturally you forfeit and the game and the trophy gets handed to the other team.

For some it is a matter of personally comfort and personal situations which I can understand hence the reason I work within the system. 

In the same token crucifying those individuals that would engage in the system to try to make it pro-liberty is foolish.  Would you exile the mail-room clerk at Enron because of the evils that Enron transgressed?  Or the doorman or the whistle blower that tried but failed to warn those that needed to know?  No, of course not.  The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those few individuals who made those sinister decisions and robbed so many of so much.

The baseball analogy used prior asks if we should use the Chicago Cubs to weaken the Chicago Cubs.  This is easy enough, hire a manage who wants to fill the roster with non-athletes.  Done.  The lose nearly every game.  After four or eight years, what then?  Hire another manager of similar thinking, rinse, repeat.

In the same respect this is how many see the Ron Paul candidacy.  It is a step in the direction of a weaker government, only a step.  Taking into account reality we cannot expect a switch to be thrown and government to disappear.  Should Dr. Paul be successful, the next step is to continue the trend: dismantling departments, repealing laws, expelling corrupt bureaucrats, returning power to the states, ect.  At the same time individual out-of-system activists will continue to highlight and expose unjust laws and garner media attention thus, hopefully, generating public sympathy.



my $0.02 fiat

[MaineShark]

See, I think you've just done it again. By saying things like, "Someone has a bit of trouble understanding sarcasm...the rolling eyes should have done it, but apparently not..." you're basically calling me an idiot. The rolling eyes seemed to me to just add to the antagonism. If you really thought I was an idiot, you'd explain it to me patiently. If you wanted to piss me off, you'd say pretty much what you did. Using sarcasm to discredit my position seemed to me like an emotional attack, not a logical one. I'm being as careful as possible to not let this descend into a round of the sort of emotional attacks message boards are prone to, because I find this topic to be extremely serious and important. That's not to say I don't think there's room for humor (which I've been using a bit of)...but sarcasm isn't just humor, it's humor directed to get an emotional rise out of someone. I only pointed it out because I didn't want you to think you had made any sort of argument against my position by saying that I wanted the government around.

This makes about zero sense.  The comment was obviously sarcastic.  If I meant it seriously, it would be in direct contradiction to what I've been saying, so anyone could tell that it was sarcastic.  If it was anything other than purely humorous, it would be self-deprecation, not some sort of imaginary "attack."

There is still a difference between taxation and voting, even if they are both functions of government. One you get shot for, the other you don't. There's a lot more choice involved in voting, because you get to choose to not vote if you don't want to. I agree that how you choose to defend yourself is up to you. I'm not saying that voting is immoral anymore, because I'm not completely sure if it is (though I still think it's less effective to reach my goals than other methods).

You're free to choose not to pay taxes.  Just go live in the woods like a hermit.  No gun will be pointed at your head.  Simple.

Joe