To be clear I'm not suggesting that he should, but if he wishes to found a libertarian state, that would be the correct step.
Can you think of any state that had a non-violent birth?
You can built a movement as much as you like but until it actually moves it's just a group of people doing nothing.
Yes, until they do something, they haven't done it. #lapalissade
Next falsehood?
You can call out the native issue as in the case of Brazil, but then you doom any possible future state to a "violent birth" just by virtue of some cromagnon somewhere beating the last neanderthal to death to establish Homo Sapiens dominion on the planet.
And in any case, so what if every state so far has had a violent birth? Are we doomed forever to repeat the same paradigm?
Anyhow, tl; dr: Canada is most certainly independent, and gained its independence peacefully (although there were minor conflicts prior to that).
The Crown is the head of our State; all authority derives from our Sovereign.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/compendium/web-content/c_d...
Ultimately, all legislation requires Royal Assent, and all executive powers are granted by the authority of the Sovereign, who may revoke them at their will and so force an election.
Would you say UK is not _actually_ independent because it's a constitutional monarchy? If not so, why would Canada be any different?
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/compendium/web-content/c_d...
Yes, Canada is a monarchy, yes, the Queen has the ultimate power in theory, but the head of state is the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of the UK.
I'll repeat myself, them being both the same person is incidental, if you think the fact Canada being a monarchy means it's not independent, does that also mean the UK is not?
For instance, the dissolution of personal union between Norway and Sweden, where Norway got independence in 1905.
Malaysia was rather glad to get rid of Singapore in 1965.
Much of the dissolution of the British Empire happened without actual violence in the independence, although there has been considerable violence in many of the places afterwards.
Even the independence of Baltic states and other Soviet republics in 1991 at the collapse of USSR came without real war; there was some violence but you can't really call it a violent birth.
To say there was no violence in the Baltics is highly disingenuous - Latvia gained independence through bloodshed, lost it through bloodshed, gained it again through bloodshed, lost it through bloodshed, then finally glastnost - which was largely non-violent. I was quite literally at their independence memorial today in Riga.
As I said, with Baltics I was specifically referring to 1991 which was largely non-violent. Yes, not entirely without violence, but these modern countries were not forged by military power, they were forged by the will of the nation.
and of course here there was no bloodshed at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War