Government is a Protection Racket

From the years of 650-1650 Celtic Ireland maintained a stateless system of private law that kept the peace and ensured that criminals paid restitution to their victims. While this system was led by "kings" they were in no sense the royal Monarchs that brutalized the rest of Europe. No Celt was bound to follow or pay taxes any particular King, he could pick and choose any at his own will. This is truly a system of self-rule and consent. A Democratic-Republic is simply tyranny by the majority, the 51% force their particular leader on the 49%. If a Republic really gathers its taxes fully by consent then anyone who believes this is welcome to cease paying their taxes and see what happens as the government kicks down their door and shoots them if they resist arrest. Republics such as Rome, France, and the US have gained reputation for having hostile foreign policies that cause much chaos; and would a constitutional amendment really stop this? And if elections prove consent then the Jews murdered in holocaust were not really murdered but simply "committed suicide". As for the Constitution, how does it apply to anyone but those who signed it? If it really is a mutual insurance contract then parties should be allowed to leave it at any time. And will anyone really argue that the US constitution has restrained government power? Even if politicians wanted to "properly" run their government, they could not possibly do so; since government property unsaleable and no market signals exist for politicians to follow to know that they are using their resources properly. In addition to this, they have much incentive to squander as many resources as they are able to as quickly as possible, for whatever they do not use during their temporary time in office they will not be able to use later. Voting is popular because while it is often called "self-governance" in reality it is a means to "others-governance", a way to easily acquire your neighbor's property. If a law or Constitutional restraint is in the way then the majority will simply ignore the law or vote in a new one. What is to stop the majority? Governments are able to wage the conflicts that they do because they have the unique abilities to tax and conscript armies for long-term conflicts. A land without law (public or private) would still be better off than a land with state government because petty, local gangs would have no way to amass the huge troop levels and funding that government is able through its mechanisms of violent force. There would be no "total wars" involving millions in single conflict. Two gangs in the same city could not use WMDs on each other without blowing themselves up in the process. But this concedes too much, if private individuals bore their own cost for wars and violence they would be far less likely to commit violence beyond what was absolutely needed for self-defense. Common gangs and even terrorist organizations have not achieved even close to the level of death and destruction that Nation-States have been able to dish out. A system of private protection companies competing for voluntary customers would work to minimize violence for the sake of protecting profits. Cooperation is affordable; war is very expensive.