hypotheticals are not really something I entertain
Since it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, I believe you.
But to me not being able to, is not the barrier you assume it to be. The bigger barrier is not being
willing to.
That's not something I can do much about. It's beyond my pay grade.
At least we got there without too much effort

.
as opposed to third party citations from people who are experts in the field
if I want a medical opinion, I go to a doctor, if I want a legal opinion, I go to a lawyer
in this case I would expect something from someone who is an expert on the state
When you use the word 'expert', you assume a meritocracy, where the most able are free to rise to the top.
I don't believe that we live in a meritocracy. Not for a minute. I think the reality is that incentives to corruption are sufficiently overwhelming as to make an absolute pig-stye of that rose-tinted world view.
Whenever the State is involved in protecting you or offering you advice(or threatening you unless you take advice), there is a conflict of interest. That is to say it is heavily incentivized to behave criminally.
Politicians and the 'philanthropists' they enable and sustain, at the expenses of the unsuspecting dupe, may come and go, from election cycle to election cycle, and civilization to civilization, but that incentive remains ever-present.
If you want to know the size of that conflict of interest - which I'm only speaking
through you, now, to others who are reading this(because of the aforementioned problem) - it seems we are not short of information. Even though the State and its cronies in media and academia like to omit it's crimes from it's editions of history.
1) $33 trillion in public debt, with no signs of abatement, and no known strategy of paying it back.
2) a pile of corpses, 200+ million high, of those murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone. Excluding war-dead.