Conservatives are opposed to any form of collectivism.
You say you oppose collectivism,
That is to say, we may only conduct business profitably because government enforces laws which create an environment in which the conduct of business is practical and sustainable.
and then proceed to endorse it! You're saying that the government is entitled to the fruits of its collective extortion because it provides collective benefits, aren't you?
But I don't think you're
really opposed to
all forms of collectivism. I know I'm not. For example, my family is much closer to operating under economic collectivism than economic capitalism--internally, I mean. We all have our individual responsibilities, and when we fulfill them, everyone is fed, clothed, and sheltered. There is very little capitalist activity inside the family.
There are circumstances under which collectives work much better than capitalist competition. But they're all small--very small. Small enough that each member can know all the other members and hold them individually accountable.
Funding necessary government is not collectivism, however.
It might be. Funding techniques differ, and so do people's opinions of what constitutes "necessary government."
Government should be funded, ideally, by charging a fee for the benefits government provides.
And if you decide you don't need or want those services? Is it just for the government to assess you for them anyway? How about if you use more government services than the next guy: should you be charged more or less than he is?
That is to say, we may only conduct business profitably because government enforces laws which create an environment in which the conduct of business is practical and sustainable.
Can you explain why you believe this? Why do you need a coercive government to help you conduct business?
