You're wrong on at least three counts: I absolutely do claim to be a libertarian, for one.
And Mr Dupont claims to be the Dalai Lama...
Secondly, while I advocate a system which I call AP, I do not "advocate" the MISUSE of that system for the act of attacking people who have no initiated force or fraud.
In the diatribe you proceed to spew forth you define "fraud" as tax collection. In other words you are calling for the murder of the members of the IRS. I don't consider your position to be distinguishable from that of the Oaklahoma city bombers. Interestingly enough the paragraph that begins by claiming there are at least three points runs out of steam after only two. In fact it is not argued from a classical libertarian or liberal position as claimed. The classical liberal position is that there are no rights without law so AP is self contradictory. I consider the authority of Rawls and Cohen on this one somewhat more persuasive than Bell. Mills certainly argues from this position but I can't claim to have discussed it with Mills :-) I don't think that Nozdic would accept the argument either. It is entirely from false analogies. In law the right of self defense is limited. You are not entitled to kill someone if you fear that they might tread on your toe. The force used has to be both necessary and commensurate. To argue that one is entitled to murder IRS agents because you disagree with the legitimacy of taxes is certainly not a liberal position. It also wont do to disown the consequences of the scheme. Of course it would be the perfect scheme for getting rid of unwanted spouses etc. Simply dismissing this as an "unfortunate" side effect is not credible. Its like Teller's scheme to build a second panama canal using A bombs, describing the radiation damage caused as an unfortunate side effect. Phill