So, the state lives in people’s heads — in the form of a paternalistic worldview, established practices of avoiding responsibility for solving urgent issues, and a lack of experience or even a notion of what alternatives are possible. In essence, the state is simply one of many logical errors that have haunted humanity throughout history. Like sympathetic magic (the belief that objects that were once a single whole or connected maintain this bond and mutual influence after separation) or, for example, the fundamental attribution error (where a person tends to explain their own actions by external circumstances, but the actions of others by their inherent nature). It is the same with the state — a person is prone to consider any individual official a nonentity, yet the state as a whole remains competent and wise in their eyes. Or they may consider themselves responsible and independent thinkers, but believe that others inevitably need a firm hand, otherwise they will go mad and kill each other.
You don’t choose your parents. Nor your homeland. That is a fact. But the claim that one cannot choose where and with whom to live further — that is already sympathetic magic. In early childhood, a person decides very little for themselves; there are external reasons for this. When an adult seeks to shift the responsibility for their life onto some faceless external parent, that is already a characteristic of their personality. To think otherwise is a fundamental attribution error.
Alas, one cannot simply say “get the state out of your head.” It is impossible to completely avoid such cognitive biases; at most, one can reflect on them within oneself and adjust for their presence.
It is entirely realistic to develop a habit of thinking within the framework of a libertarian system of principles. Habits are built through practice. Therefore, to develop a way of thinking in which there is no place for the state, it is most useful to practice organizing one’s own life in such a way that there is no room for the state there.
To begin with, however, it would be good to simply stop calling things by the wrong names. Not “pay taxes,” but “pay off the racketeers.” Not “free healthcare,” but “healthcare with mandatory contributions.” Not “the state,” but “the strongest gangster on our territory.” And so on. It is not necessary to do this loudly, risking being labeled a wild freak; it is enough to say it to oneself.
Next, it is very useful to look for people who, in one way or another, evade taxes, bypass regulations, and do not appear in official documents. They may have interesting stories, and their experience is partially quite suitable for adoption. Collecting and implementing such hints can and should become a fashionable pursuit. The more widespread it becomes, the harder it will be for the state to combat it. But even if all these cases prove to be too unique and non-replicable, they are still inspiring. If only to search for similar unique and non-replicable opportunities for oneself.
Another important point. There is no need to be overly strict with other people who are equally under the power of the state. It is always very difficult to leave an abusive relationship and almost impossible to emerge unscathed. Many will cling to them until the very end — not because they are evil etatists, but because they have already lost all faith in the possibility of living differently, and only want the authorities to torment them less and occasionally throw them some crumbs. Fortunately, humanity has accumulated experience in dealing with such psychological dependencies, and this experience can and should be used.