That's bullshit, Tom. Especially that rightwing slur about liberals wanting to give their money to the state. No, we just believe in paying our bills.

As for American independence being due to the glories of its Libertarian forefathers, that's crap too. Here is what actually happened.

Unlike the mother country, America was politically free, phenomenally rich, because of slave labor, free land, low population, and abundandant resources. It was self sufficient and had no ponderous parasitic land-holding aristocracy to support.

On the other hand, it depended on the Crown for protection against the Indians and the French and Spanish, and it was notoriously reluctant to help pay the bills for that protection. By the way, the French and Spanish both helped finance the Revolution, but it wasn't because they gave a fig about Liberty either. They just wanted to stick it to the English.

The UK, on the other hand, constantly at war with the French and the Dutch, saw it as a place to go for money and naval stores, like timber and tar. Economic tensions were inevitable. About a third of the colonial population would benefit if the English left,
that is, the small businessmen and big planters you favor, about a third's fortunes were with the Crown (most of them wound up moving to Canada, they have contributed little to the histories) and the rest didn't care one way or the other.

The war was fought because the business class thought they could do better without the Brits (at least, the businessmen who weren't getting rich selling to the Crown). It was a bourgeois revolution. Like most wars, It had little to do with Liberty, it was mostly about money.

What I would like to know is why the revolution did not spread to Canada. After all, they had a profitable fur trade there, and a bunch of Quebecker troublemakers PO'd at the Crown. And I'm sure they had plenty of capitalists.
What they didn't have was any Libertarians.