anarchy is a hearts-and-minds battle, but any ideological movement needs its heros/icon/mythos, and Ian's being utterly beautiful at that aspect of it, even if and perhaps even moreso if/when he goes down in flames. i'll happily throw a champange glass into that fire when i toast him. he's a better warrior than i, but at least i'm duly ashamed of that fact, and that's a start.. cheers baby! -/

::raising my glass, downing the stuff, hurling the glass into the fireplace where Ian's passion burns:: LIBERTAS!!

However, if Ian chooses to live outside of the laws and Constitution of the state and nation in which he resides, he will naturally revert back to a (for lack of a better word) "Hobbesian" state of nature wherein might makes right. Without law and a Constitution to protect the property rights vital to your and any similar form of reasoning the government will simply use its vastly superior might to do as it chooses. The only way this or any similar plan may work is by acting within the rules of the current system.

The question now has become how one independent party interacts with another. In this case, I'm pretty certain the reply to Ian's letter will be some form of aggression, sooner or later.

If you haven't read it already, I'd recommend Lysander Spooner's "No Treason" http://www.lysanderspooner.org

You can argue til your face is blue, but I still won't care about "democracy" and all that other nonsense.

Past that, majoritarianism is what is set forth in the Constitution itself, so once again it is directly tied to the protections that your argument requires.

In all, my argument is based on a Constitutional viewpoint. As Mike pointed out in passing, there are a number of viewpoints you can take. You seem to be speaking from a voluntaryist or anarcho-capitalist position wherein contract and property law is the only thing protected.

This is nonsense. I do not consent, and others cannot consent for me.

To Mike: I wouldn't call it legalese sleight of hand necessarily. I would guess it's just the way that amendment happened to work out.

However, by its very nature, the Constitution only applies to citizens of the United States. This is due to a number of factors, most importantly being the manner in which it was ratified. As it was ratified by actual citizens of each state, not state legislatures, it is tied directly to those people. The Constitution was personally accepted by a majority of people/citizens of the time. As such, in this majoritarian system we live in, it was accepted by the people as a whole.

This manner of ratification leads to a direct connection between the Constitution and the individual citizen as acceptor and acceptee. That relationship has continued on to this day.

And I am trying to point out that even in the theoretical arena, though you put up a valiant effort, you still cannot win. If you refuse the laws, then you refuse the protections that come with them. Essentially, you're damned if you do (accept the laws) and you're damned if you don't.