It is not a rhetorical question. You have no plan. You spout off as if your philosophy is superior when in fact it is impossible. I ask again. What is your proposal? Mine is to enforce Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America. Sound money, allodial title to land, & peace. What is your plan?
It's obviously a rhetorical question because you won't accept any answer that includes abolishing your beloved mafia extortion, kidnapping, and murder machine. You want to keep it at all costs...because you falsely, inspite of all logic, feel it's not only necessary, but beneficial and benign.
The plan has been stated. Parent children so they are raised to understand the state is immoral. Educate them, and adults, to understand the same. That's 95% of the process. The other 5% is to outlaw the state (the geographic monoplies on roads, money, fire service, police, defense, etc.). Once these monopolies are ended, the state dies. The state is an ideology, not a philosophy. It's simply an idea that needs to end, and then IT functionally ends. You wake up, it's that much closer to abolition.
It's like asking "who will pick the cotton if we abolish slavery?", or "who will wash my clothes and fix my meals if my wife is allowed to work and own property like a man?".
There is nothing impossible about the only non-utopian philosophy. Utopia implies uniformity, something anarchists are dead set against. You want a righteous and moral mafia...that's utopian and impossible.
My proposal is a proposal known for over a hundred years...but you don't seek answers, or you'd look them up online instead of asking us rhetorical questions and posting videos about overly simplistic answers to making your mafia monopoly a thing of the past. My proposal is parenting, education, and allowing competition. My strategy is anarchism without adjectives, and my form of organization and economics is panarchist synthesis. Government should be able to be opted-into and out-of without you physically relocating (panarchism; Voluntaryism). No one should be required to be in any of these social contracts at all, unless they want to, provided they do not harm or defraud anyone or their properties in the act of self governance. It's unethical, illogical, and aggressive to do anything else.
Your Constitution is a codification of a territorial monopoly on mafia, extortion, kidnapping, murder, and any number of services that could be provided by the free market. You love it; but what you love is violence against soveriegns who have not harmed anyone. You fail to care, and continue to claim ignorance of the ramifications of your ideals. Your only retort to any of the philosophy we try to make you face is appeal to authority (or some other informal logical fallacy). We do not want your Constitution...it's a good means to an anarchist/Voluntaryist end...but it cannot be an end unto itself. If it is your end, it is immorality you wish to achieve...the aggression against innocents and the perpetuation of a monopoly on mafia.
You act as if the state doesn't destroy your property rights through tax, by making the state your landlord, the owner of your labor, your consumer choices, your life itself. You do not own what you rent, and the state rents you your property as long as it taxes it. Worse, it can seize it for any reason whatsoever in your Constitution. That's protecting property rights? Peace is initiating force through extortion? Defending you from domestic and foreign initiations of force is achieved by initiating force against you? Orwell had memes for this:
War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength. Interventions are Humanitarian. Pepper Spray is a Vegetable.
I added the last one, and I'll add two more:
Destruction of Property Rights protects Property Rights. Initiated Force protects you from Initiated Force.
I mean, while we're trading memes, why not, right?
Now I ask you, what is your philosophy? What are your ethics? (More importantly, are you willing to get either? Because you currently have neither.)
Lastly, please stopping quoting an anarchist (Rothbard) out of context to make your sophistic arguments for statism. Your making yourself look like a totally ignorant, or intellectually dishonest, person.
