We can reject the state for failure to act

Anyone who has spent much time debating will know that political arguments are easy to win if they are common-law type arguments such as crime and murder. We can argue against the state killing people in the same way that we can argue against a person killing people. And it is an easy argument to win. The nature of the argument is no different just because we are dealing with a state. Things become a little more difficult (when we seek to argue against the state) when their actions are not common-law type crimes. For example we might object to the state providing subsidies to certain businesses... but that is not a common-law crime since we are free to give money to whomever we want. The problem (always) is the nature in which the state acquired the money in the first place. Two significant arguments fall into this category... first past the post voting and fractional reserve banking. Both of these are actions of the state which do not violate the non-aggression principle but are still very harmful. Anarchists might argue that everything the state does is harmful by definition but this does not help us to resolve issues such as these unless we are willing to argue for the complete abolition of the state. The way to resolve this in an argument (rhetorically) is to reject the state but be clear about your reasons for doing so. Since we live in a democracy this is somewhat effective since politicians seek election. Arguments such as these against the state are not contradicting their assumptions (they might still think subsidies are worthwhile) they merely make it clear that these actions are not acceptable to you. It is not arrogant to prefer proportional representation and full-reserve banking for example and are we entitled to expect the state to do something about them in a democracy.