I am reading with great interest this thread, and the articulate people who are writing it.
I am opposed to the use of the initiation of force. And I am attracted to the idea of a fee based government.
However, I think this concept may be too much for the overwhelming number of people who take the (misunderstood) ideas of democracy, the state, and the use of force in ways that I fear would prevent us from ever getting even close to a truly free society. Democracy is like breathing to the masses and I suggest that their ties to it are awfully strong.
Philosophically, the idea that initiative force is immoral is absolutely correct. Getting there however, may be impossible, and then where are we?
Perhaps we should admit an exception to the rule of non-coercion when such coercion is used solely for the preservation of individual liberty. That our government is RESTRICTED to only protecting freedom. And that would mean courts, police, and armed forces and NOTHING MORE.
Look at the nation as a beautiful cake filled with the gooey goodness of liberty in which a tiny sliver is taken out to preserve that liberty. That tiny sliver would be taxes.
I know that's what our founders intended, and I realize the criticism that when you give the state ANY right to initiate force against an innocent person, its natural state is to grow and grow grow.
But the idea of the limited state that our forefathers proposed is valid.
I guess I'm suggesting a "do over".