The Economic Irrationality of the State

Probably one of the few articles, The Economic Irrationality of the State that I'd ask everyone here to read. The author,Eric Englund, puts it so much more eloquently than I ever could on how the state should not exist from an economic argument.

I can't remember where I read this but Murray Rothbard had mentioned that it was the impossibility of defending even a minarchist government, where only private property and contracts were protected by government, over defending a socialistic government that led him to become an Anarcho-Capitalist.

If person A believed in socialism, B in America's Constitutional Republic, C in minarchism, and D in anarchism. What right does person A have to force socialism on person B? What right does person B have to force America's form of government on person C? What right does person C have to force minarchism on person D?

As most here are inclined to be close to person B or C which is based off a subjective idea of what government should do. If you believe that your form of government is the right one and should be forced upon person D, what possible logical defense can be made to stop person's A belief of government over B, C, and D?

Since I believe that there is no logical defense that can be made (post here if you have one) we must all reject the state completely from a moral stand point.

Reject Totalitarianism, reject the state, and support freedom.