I have read through your response. One glaring question stands out as I read. You say:

I am really pointing to the reality that 'the state' is a group of billionaires dressed up as a government.

Are you implying that the state (violence-based monopoly) can ever be legitimate if billionaires are not in power? That is to say, that it is the rich, and not the violent mechanisms/available seats of power, that are the problem?

Also, by your logic that all property is violation, is not your very home a violation, then, and thus illegitimate?

It seems you fancy yourself outside of the “box” of common thinking. That’s fine. It strikes me as odd though, the addition of the meme at the end. How could billionaires be a problem without a tool called the state for them to manipulate?

It’s not that you’re so above and beyond and “outside of the box,” perhaps, but that you don’t understand individual self-ownership, natural law, and the power of a free market.

As for budget proposals and paying devs on new propositions/projects: I’m not against that. I am against the attitude that “they don’t deserve ____, so I and/or others should have it.”

As I said before, you and Jerry may be correct, maybe they are overpaid. It just seems strange to me as a primary suggestion. When will @jerrybanfield include himself in the pay cut? When will you? When will you attempt to fund these projects with money generated from your own efforts and the initial action, and then if that fails, maybe ask about pay cuts for others?