RE: Honor the Troops? Maybe We Should Hold Them Accountable Instead.

Thank you for your detailed reply. :)

there were over 30 presidential candidates in the most recent election

Most with zero chance of winning. You know this to be true. So how is voting for them helpful? We already saw how the election commission rigged things last time to prevent the libertarian party from even being part of the debates.

Then there is the matter of international trade, and how it's protected by the Navy and Marine Corps.

That's a good point I hadn't considered. I mostly think about defense as something each individual needs to take personal responsibility for and not something they can steal from others to finance. I'm not aware of how often the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps plays world police for the betterment of everyone, but it sounds like something I should look into more for a more complete perspective.

The world's economy relies on the U.S. military

Because of the Bretton Woods agreement where we basically shafted everyone else. At least, that's my perception of things. We hold the world reserve currency along with the largest military budget (by far) so everyone else has to fall in line or else.

They see everything through a filter and fail to understand the state of the world.

I'm not sure empirical evidence supports this claim. The youth of today are more connected with the rest of the world via the Internet than any human generation in history.

But the Armed Forces provide

To me, this is a non-argument. If I list the wonderful things being part of a mafia family provides, that also wouldn't be a valid justification.

Team Rubicon is a veteran and first responder collaboration that responds to worldwide disasters using the skills obtained from the military.

That's a good point and one I can't dismiss. The skills learned in the military, even if used for immoral ends, can be used for good after they leave the military. But couldn't this also be considered just making the best of a bad situation?

Yet anarchy has shown itself as violence and destruction of public and private property alike

Sorry, no. Those claiming to be "anarchists" who you've pictured here have been throughly disowned by every voluntaryist and anarchist group I've ever associated with. Sure, there are some fringe group of losers living in their mom's basements who just want to watch the world burn, but that's not the style of anarchist I'm talking about. When I think anarchist, I'm thinking more along the lines of Jeffrey_Tucker or Larken Rose. Most anarchists follow the NAP (non-aggression principle) and many believe in the philosophy of liberty. Putting on a mask, waving a flag, and calling oneself an "anarchist" doesn't make someone an anarchist any more than getting a Marine tattoo and yelling "Oorah!" makes someone a Marine. Yes, some fringe groups of anarchism have practiced the propaganda of the deed, but mostly I've seen that perspective discredited as not only ineffective, but immoral.

At what point should they re-evaluate their action?

The moment they start destroying people's property and causing harm to others. That's not voluntaryism by any stretch of the imagination.

you believe that it can be better than what we have now.

I don't think we've had real anarchism in many places in the world because those in power will not allow it, though that's not to say it hasn't existed anywhere (there are some interesting examples listed on wikipedia).

I suggest you find someone to represent you before November 3rd, 2020 for the next presidential election.

The best I can come up with so far is is Kokesh2020. His goal is to peacefully dismantle the Federal Government, and he's a veteran as well. Not the best candidate possible, I'll grant you, but at least someone who understands the "no rulers" perspective I'm coming from.

Thanks for the Bill Maher video. It was funny, and he makes some good points, but it reminds me of the meme I can't seem to find right now showing Kim Jong Un voting while we make fun of North Koreans for only having one choice while we're so enlightened because we have two choices. Most of Maher's argument goes something like, "Yeah, it is what it is, do your duty and put up with it." I think many people are seeing this as a false dichotomy and wanting to select no rulers instead of picking pre-selected candidates who essentially give us the same old same old, regardless of which party they come from. Being forced to pick the lesser of two evils is still a choice for evil.

Technological solutions such as blockchains and smart contracts make much of government backed by violent force irrelevant today. We don't need rulers if we can set up voluntary contracts which are automatically enforced without violence.

Again, I really appreciate this dialogue, and I think you made a lot of good points which I didn't comment on and will continue to ponder. As I said in my original OP, I am probably painting with a pretty wide brush here, and I realize I don't have the perspective of those who have been in the armed forces.

At the same time, I recognize that every generation that set out to change the status quo was seen as crazy by the generation the preceded it. Voluntaryism, the NAP, and non-violent communication do seem crazy by those who have only ever known war as the answer. That doesn't mean new solutions aren't possible.

Thanks again for your informative and detailed comments.