Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We prohibit slavery on the exact same basis as we recognize the immorality of taxation. The human instinct for territory leads to slavery. > We know that the arguments are not logical Who is we? > The same basis we rejected the last system. No one has rejected taxation as a concept other than yourself. > Consent cannot be obtained through coercion. By that definition, all laws are coercive, as they all contain puni…
> The human instinct for territory leads to slavery. Negative. Territory is things, not people. > By that definition, all laws are coercive, as they all contain punitive measures. This is not true. You’ve neglected to consider laws that prohibit without specifying consequences for violation. You’re also neglecting to consider laws against coercion. > In fact, it can be extrapolated that all of society is coercive, as…
It is also a human instinct to treat people as things. Thus, we appear to be creating a society that can override baser instincts. Anti-propertarians would thus be claiming to transcend those instincts in the name of greater justice, in the same nature as you are claiming to transcend this instincts to abolish taxation.
> You’ve neglected to consider laws that prohibit without specifying consequences for violation.
Those laws are clearly in the minority.
> Now you’re understanding why a “social contract” can’t be used to justify violating someone’s rights.
Correct, and it means that your problem is with the whole of the social contract, and taxation is but a fraction of what it entails.
> You’re arguing against it with me right here.
I argue because I choose to, not because it actually reveals anything about my actual opinions or convictions.
> roads predate the government that expropriated them from the commons.
Much like private property.
> I shouldn’t need permission from bureaucrats to use the roads.
Then you are stealing from the actual parties who built those roads and maintain them.
> You’re losing the plot.
Tu quoque.
> Bureaucrats taxing and spending necessarily means that I’m competing, with bureaucrats, for goods, while the bureaucrats are using my own money to compete with me.
Yes, yes, the issue of private competition with public services does exist. All of which can be explored without denying the fundamental principle of taxation, as aforementioned ad nauseam.
> So you agree that I do not have the right of exit.
Yes, but you believe in it for the wrong reasons.
> [citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_taxless_countries
> No, it is not.
Sure it is. Do you claim to be able to protect it if a foreign power assaults it? Can you take on an entire criminal cartel?
> Rent is not a unilateral transaction, neither is it extortion.
Rent is unilaterally determined by the rentier, who establishes a coercive rent regime due to monopoly ownership over the property in question. Thus, it is extortion because the other party is inherently at a disadvantage.
> You think the government is an alternative to might makes right? Interesting.
Even most minarchists who want only a night-watchman state will agree upon the necessity of court systems and law enforcement to enforce contracts. You are free to advance an alternative, if you'd like.
> Unowned property becomes owned through homesteading, owned property changes hands through voluntary transfer.
Homesteading is established through force, and voluntary transfer exist along relations that are backed by the violent force that is society.
> Force is a primary means of retaining property when someone attempts to take it from the owner.
Because in a Hobbesian state of nature all property is up for grabs, property is inherently in need of protection, and thus force is always on the table.
> I’ve made a solid case that does not rely on Proudhon
It certainly doesn't, but your case lives in the same moral universe as Proudhon's does, and has about as much relation to reality as his.