I think it is important to recognize that we don't live in a libertarian society and that most people in our society are not now in favor of a libertarian society. This results in the situation where, even if we don't want to, we must interact with government to some degree. As Walter Block points out:
I have in my time been "guilty" of accepting subsidies from the state. I shop for food in supermarkets, and eat even more of it in restaurants. I therefore indirectly avail myself of agricultural subsidies (I full well realize that farm goods would be cheaper in the fully free society, but, still, given our lack of economic freedom, there may well be a subsidy in it for me from dining.) I have U.S. fiat fractional reserve bank currency in my wallet and use it too, even though as a libertarian I favor free market (e.g., gold or silver) money. I use streets, sidewalks, roads and highways, brought to me courtesy of our least favorite institution.The question then must become, how much interaction should a libertarian have with government. My answer to that is that a libertarian should be a "libertarian bitch" and take and take and take.
Here is how I justify this position:
I think it should be recognized that governments in general, and certainly the United States government, attempt to take as much money as they can from the economic sphere they control, through taxation, borrowing and money printing.
It should be further recognized that any money the government takes is dispersed according to the value scale set up by those in government who control the money.
Thus, if say, for example, scientist, John Jones, turns down a job in government because he is a libertarian, it is not going to be the case that all taxpayers will then receive a check back from the government with a letter saying, "attached please fine a check for two cents which is you pro-rata share of refunded taxes as a result of the fact that John Jones has turned down a job working for the government."
This will not happen, those who control the purse strings of the captured loot will simply spend the money on the next thing on their value scale (which likely will be another person to fill John Jones' position--or it could be something else like buying more bullets).
If we look at it this way. It may be heroic for Jones the scientist to take the money, so that there is no chance that it is used to buy bullets. I consider this action being that of a "libertarian bitch".
We have all seen the role of the femme fatale played in movies, where the mysterious but deadly woman ensnares a man in a way that brings about his downfall. In the movie, Casino, the character played by Robert DeNiro is brought down by Ginger McKenna (played by Sharon Stone).
Now let us think of another situation, a top mob leader, of the worst kind, not one who provides black market services that are not allowed to be marketed openly because of government regulations, but one who is a real psycho thug. One who shakesdown legitimate businesses, steals merchandise and kills for the fun of it. Now, lets assume that there is a woman, who this thug is attracted to. She sees all the stealing he does, all the killing he does. She realizes that there is no chance that he will stop this, that there is no chance she will be able to coax him into returning stolen money and goods. She realizes he will occupy all his waking hours stealing and killing.
She also knows that some of the money he takes is passed out to "soldiers" who do even more hits and robberies. She may not be able to stop his activities, but she knows that because of his attraction for her, she can get him to spend time with her, which has to cut down on the time he is robbing and killing, and she can ask for things, diamonds, fancy clothes. And she can ask for more and more, which means he has less money to pay out to his "soldiers" to do contract killings etc.
Is this woman heroic? Absolutely. There is no way she could ever get the thug to tell her who he stole money from, there is no way she could demand that he stop his ruthless ways, but by occupying his time and taking and taking, and being a real bitch about it, and demanding even more, she is saving lives and preventing even more thuggery.
The situation is much the same with government. It is a thuggish operation that will never stop taking as much as it can and use much of the money in monstrous ways. We need look no further than the CIA sponsored torture chambers and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon Syria and Iran).
Thus, an employee (or contractor) of the government that takes and takes, without coming up with ways the government can be more aggressive is pretty much playing the role of unsatisfied, always demanding bitch, that drains the thug.
I would much rather have a government employee building a bridge to nowhere Alaska than see that money end up being used to build more drones. In short, if the money is going to be thugged out of Americans anyway, than the libertarian should do everything possible to see to it that it is spent in ways that do not advance aggression, e.g. war.
The goals is to be a libertarian bitch that is always demanding and demanding and ultimately bringing an overburdened government to its knees. In some respects, this is going on in Greece now. The Greeks don't want to see any of their government hand outs cut, yet they don't want to see any taxes increased. This is a perfect scenario when dealing with an overbearing state. The state starts to malfunction and could ultimately collapse. When the government is so overbearing, and they all really are, the role of the libertarian should be to take and take, so that the funds are not used for aggressive purposes, but do help speed up the fall of the state. In short, become a demanding, never stop taking libertarian bitch.
Now, while being a libertarian, it is okay to take government money, there are some things that a libertarian should never advocate:
1. increasing taxes
2. closing of tax loopholes
3. the Fed increasing the money supply
4. attempting to put government in a good light
5. creating any products or services that will enable the government to become more aggressive against others, in any way, for example, it would violate libertarian code to make government prisons, drones, bullets, tracking software or nuclear bombs.
Any of the above activities would result in aiding the aggressiveness of the state, which, of course, would violate the non-aggression principle.
But to take government money so that it is not used in an aggressive manner, and so that it moves the government towards collapse and confusion is a noble cause.
Three cheers for libertarian bitches!!!