Property rights can be defended legitimately as a form of self defense.
At last Somalia makes an appearance.
Because they are accepted as legitimate. Most immoral things are shunned by society.
My diction is extreme?
You drew a distinction between extortion and taxation saying that taxation is “needed” while extortion benefits the extorter. Taxation benefits the taxer as well but i’ll leave that aside. Does everyone need taxation? If not, are they being extorted?
And yet, there they are standing in your way. It’s almost as if you haven’t actually refuted them.
Yes, taxation is extortion of a kind. Yes, taxation is immoral.
However, it is the lesser of two evils. A society without a functioning government, and government does need revenue to function, is far worse than one with a tax burden subject to a democratic process.
It can’t, but it’s irrelevant as there is no such thing as a moral society. All societies are a compromise of morality from the start, to achieve a greater end than the individual is capable of. The benefits are thought to outweigh the costs.
This is the slaveowner argument more or less. “You benefit from our arrangement so you must yield to my demands.”
Three, seek the abolishment of taxation at home.
It’s not unreasonable to force slaves to pay for goods they are using.- Some slaveowner
What, exactly, do you think “vote for representatives who will repeal the laws that provide the benefits” means?
Some people need the services provided by taxation. Others need to contribute to the pot. Most need both. Maybe you’re familiar with the idea, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” 
Oh please. Your choice of words says that you look at this issue in a particular way. So far you’ve repeatedly compared taxation to slavery, Mafia extortion, and stealing, among other things. You chose your words deliberately, did you not? Why act surprised when people respond to your comparisons? It can’t be news to you that this is not the way most people see these issues and that most people consider your view quite extreme.
I would define a moral society as one free from “legitimate” or legal coercion. I’m not sure how you say all societies are a compromis of morality from the start. Society can be built on a voluntary basis that achieves a greater end thatn the individual is capable of.
And as soon as the society does something that one member is opposed to, it’s no longer moral. And if everybody leaves as soon as the society does something they don’t like, it’s not going to be a society for very long.
By the same token, taxation can be defended legitimately as the price of civil society.
Really, you’re being quite silly. First, you argue that taxes are unjust because they are enforced by force. But then in the next breath you argue that property rights aren’t unjust even though they’re enforced by force as well.
If there are legitimate uses of force, then why isn’t the enforcement of taxation one of those legitimate uses?
Yeah, Jesus, right? If people can form a government that ostensibly accomplishes this ideal (or attempts to) why can they not provide for the unfortunate’s needs without coercion?
If you accept that taxation=extortion and it is not extreme to be against extortion, why is it extreme to be against taxation?
This, exactly. And the “product of your labor” routine started by our friend John Locke was racist at its outset (he admitted that it only works if there’s a large pool of natural resources freely available for the taking, but pointed at the Americas as a source of these natural resources, as though nobody living there already had any claim to things like the forests they’d fundamentally improved through regular burnings and the like) and also relied on God as part of its justification (which I can look up if you really need me to). Autonomy over your body absolutely does not lead logically into the sort of private property rights we currently experience, and indeed it could logically lead to something very different, if we assume that control over your body means access to the resources necessary to keep your body running.
Private property exists only at the whim of Leviathan. It does not exist in a state of nature. It does not exist in an anarchy. Get rid of government, and there’s no such thing as property rights.
You sound like a petulant teenager, keen to assert your autonomy while living under your parents’ roof, eating their food and using their stuff, and complaining bitterly every time they ask you to take out the garbage or put some gas in the car.
Do please keep stamping your feet and shouting “It’s not fair!”; it’s very amusing to the rest of us.
If you go into a restaurant, order food, and eat it, you can’t cry “Extortion!” when they give you the bill. If you don’t want to pay the bill, don’t eat the food.
Personally, I like police departments, public roads, and the like, so I’m happy to help pay for them. Bu if you don’t want to pay for them, then stop using them. As long as you’re here, you’re getting their benefits, so either pay your fair share, or leave.
Self defense is the only legitimate use of force.
The difference is the government holds no sway over you wanting to leave the country.
I thought we weren’t allowed to ask about what happens to society when there are no taxes.
That was asked about in post 4, but the OP refused to answer and only replied with a question. When I raised that issue, I was accused of hijacking the thread.
Are we or are we not allowed to ask what happens after government revenue reaches 0$? I’m so confused by the arbitrary rules in this thread …
Firstly, because only individuals are capable of morality, because only individuals are capable of moral choices, abstractions like societies are not.
Secondly, because there are no societies free from coercion, they exist in order to practice coercion, to enforce standards of conduct that benefit the group, but may not benefit each individual member. A rapist is certainly not benefiting from laws against rape, for instance.
Says who?
So much for your property then.