Because I place my "faith" in a Creator/Father who I believe made us and cares for us.
Alright, that's fine, as long as you recognize that this is indeed "faith," which is not necessarily nor inherantly sensible.
I have no "faith" in fellow men having some pretend authority over me by virtue of their unfounded "belief" in a "fictious" entity called "government".
Again, also fine. I have my own quandries about anarchy which I've already covered, but it least in desire you and I are on the same page on this point.
Now although I cannot prove or disprove the existance of God, I can and have proven that "government" is a fiction and those who believe in it are exhibiting cult like behaviour...
Here is where you and I part ways. Simply because God is still (always will be) an "unproven value" does not all of the sudden render it "valid" when placed next to a value that has been widely agreed to be (at least on this forum) a "fiction." I can't prove that what you would consider to be "Satan" is the "one true god" or not, and that his "anti-morality" is the one morality designed for man, does that make a "satanic anarchy" (or insert any religion of your choice here) more "sensible" than government?
It would seem "sensible" to treat all unkown values as just that, "unknown".... and to try and limit (or eliminate entirely) these from the foundations of our logic and reasoning. As I said before, I'll never know if God exists, so he/she/it doesn't enter my "equations" in my daily life or how I relate to other human beings.
--------------------------
Interesting you mention "cult like" behavior, which the entymology of that concept is a religious one. Can I also make the inferrence that the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Muslims, [insert religion of you choice here] are also exhibiting "cult like" behavior?
If so, how does this make a "religious" faith more sensible than a "secular" one?
If not, please explain to me how it isn't, as it seems what you're talking about with your "faith" and the "faith" of others in government are similiar, if not the same.
--------------------------
Summation: I can't see how you can make the claim of fact that "Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer" when the very pillar of your position rests upon something that is subjective, unprovable and ultimately circular in nature. It's also something that niether you nor I will convince each other of, so I can respect your position and understand at the end of the day, we're both human beings and we both want more freedoms.
...but isn't it interesting that I don't need a "God" or "faith" to come to that conclusion?
Wouldn't "Anarchy" be a more sensible answer?