Addressing two arguments against anarchism

Typically, you might see libertarians touting around the phrase that taxation is theft. But when we turn around, we might see them using our tax-paid-for roads, hospitals, and other public goods funded by the people. 

But one can be unhappy with the current state of affairs while consenting to it. For example, take the grumbling of a cancer patient who has to experience nausea/vomiting and weight loss but decides to go through with the treatment anyways. 

 

The same can be said about those who accuse anti-capitalists (particularly Hasan) of enjoying the benefits of capitalism while making their living off of disavowing it. One can consent to the present state of affairs while being discontent with it.  

So, as a libertarian, I will say the following: I am happy to pay taxes in the current state of affairs, but I grumble at my present circumstance, such that when a better state of affairs might present itself (i.e. a minimal state, or a political candidate who is more constitutionally anti-federalist), I can consent to it then. I can even consent to a worse off state of affairs (such as, let us imagine a more radical statesman becomes president). None of that makes revolution or hypocrisy a logically necessary consequence.