Are you sure you want to delete this post?
In my opinion, the correct position vis a vis the State, is to oppose it at every turn. The State, defined as the territorial monopoly of coercive violence, ought to be abolished at the earliest opportunity. I've always marveled at the perverse set of priorities that people tend to have in regards to political action. For example, Hillary supporters were willing to overlook her participation in mass murder (Iraq and Libya) in order to oppose on-the-margins cuts in welfare spending.
The most obvious priority for consistent opponents of coercive aggression ought to be the State's pernicious, unconstitutional and abjectly immoral wars of aggression. The American Empire ought to be ended as quickly as possible.
Personally, I describe myself as an anti-State anarchist, an opponent of the coercive fiction known as the State. All people should be bound by the same standards of morality. Aggression against peaceful people is illegitimate, full stop.
I oppose the presidency of Donald Trump with as much commitment as I would any head of State. Anyone who would commander the illegitimate institution of the State ought to be opposed just as zealously as we would oppose any petty criminal.
I urge you to consider the libertarian non-aggression principle as a reasonable standard for determining human conduct. Voluntary and consensual transactions are to be defended while all coercive and non-consensual transactions are to be opposed as they consist of coercive violence perpetrated against an unwitting person.
This is first-grade morality being re-taught to fucking adults. Any questions?
If you support coercive State action against any unwilling participant, you are a participant in violent coercion.
Those who believe in civilization and common decency oppose violent coercion. Decency compels that all interactions between peoples be voluntary and non-coercive.