Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
There is nothing government can offer me that I want. The price is always too high, especially when it's "free".
I don't want their handouts or their idea of "national security", or economic stability/central banking, or "law and order". Their idea of "peace" or "prosperity" isn't compatible with mine, and I don't want their version. I don't even want the government versions of "freedom" or "liberty"-- those are shoddy substitutes for the real thing.
Economically, government can't give me anything it didn't first steal from someone else. I'm opposed to theft, so why would I want to receive stolen property?
I have no problem with letting others take whatever government offers-- or pretends to offer-- as long as I'm not forced to pay for it or to participate in any way. As long as market alternatives aren't prevented for those things government does that I might still like if offered elsewhere.
Why is this reasonable compromise off-limits? Is it because political government is anti-reason? Yes. Yes, it is.