> You’re no more entitled to say “no” to me as either of us is to say “no” to them.
Unlike the legislature, I did not elect you, nor did I swear an oath to a constitution that empowers you.
> Perhaps this idea of consent and aggression could lead us to a way of making laws that do not impose values on people without their consent.
What makes taxation so much more objectionable than any other law? The vast majority of which you never consented to, and are backed by no more aggression than tax law? How many drones does the IRS have?
> The model is already here, awaiting critical feedback. So far the only criticism is that people aren’t going to be able to avail themselves of other people’s property.
You are imposing a model upon a category that does not apply.
> The problem is that people impose taxes on people who have not consented.
Again, you can say that about any other law that has been agreed upon a priori.
> In essence, Proudhon wishes to exert property rights over other people’s property by forbidding certain relations. Clearly this is self-contradictory and not a basis upon which to reject rents on capital.
By what basis is it self-contradictory? By what higher authority do you define the acceptable relations with regards to property rights? Is someone allowed to set fire to his house, so that all his neighbor's homes downwind are also consumed by conflagration? If you say no, then you have already begun to impose limits of what is acceptable or not to do with one's property.
> Thats not how property is defined
According to Proudhon, "[t]here are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, naked property. 2. Possession. 'Possession,' says Duranton, 'is a matter of fact, not of right.' Toullier: 'Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact.' The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors."
> realize that restricting rent on capital because of its superior productivity impoverishes society by preventing society from accessing means of superior productivity
Regardless of the debatable effects of rent, Proudhon would argue that property is backed by force, which makes it inherently a product of violence and aggression. The same regime that forces you to pay taxes is the same regime that uses those taxes to safeguard property and the rents acquired through property; indeed, often force is also used by the state to accumulate property for its favored oligarchs and the conformists who support the state.