Even if you negotiate with private parties, you are still dependent upon the system and should support the system. What "system"? You don't need any "system" t

Even if you negotiate with private parties, you are still dependent upon the system and should support the system. What "system"? You don't need any "system" to negotiate with another private party for mutual benefit. I have something you want, you have something I want, we agree to trade—done. No one else can take any credit for that. A fairly biased-sounding interpretation, particularly the "once may have benefitted". I disagree, but it works just as well if you drop the "once may have" part and abbreviate it to "we think you benefitted from something we did without consulting you". Doing something which you think benefits someone else does not entitle you to compensation. Compensation must be negotiated and mutually agreed to in advance. If you don't have an agreement like that in place then you have effectively chosen to grant the other party a gift. You may argue that they should reciprocate (though they can reasonably disagree—what you see as beneficial to them may appear otherwise from their point of view) but you are not entitled to compensation for your unilateral action. Let's imagine a group of people get together and agree to a set of rules. They agree on consequences for breaking those rules. Now you have a govt and taxation. No, what you have at this point is a voluntary club with membership dues. You don't have government and taxation until you start enforcing those rules on people who never agreed to them. At that point your club turns into a criminal organization, similar to the Mafia. When your criminal organization grows a PR branch and starts claiming that it's criminal actions are "legitimate" and "for the public good", then you have become a government (but that doesn't mean you're no longer a criminal organization). "But _I_ didn't choose these!" you declare. True. I support that people should be able to revoke their citizenship and leave. Why should they leave? They have every right to stay. That citizenship was forced on you without your consent. You never agreed to give anything up as a condition of rejecting it. you don't get to keep "your" land and "your" property when they ARE the result of the system you are rejecting Your property rights are your by natural law, created by the mixing of labor and unowned land and subsequently transferred between private individuals by mutual consent, and not the result of any "system". No government has any right to take them away. I don't understand the argument that governments are somehow inherently evil when they are the direct result of the very principles that argument is arguing in favor of. Clearly you have no idea what principles those are, or you wouldn't have made that mistake. The one thing all governments have in common is that they employ force against people who never agreed to those rules and did not first use force against them. That is diametrically opposed to the principles that argument is in favor of—in particular the Non-Aggression Principle.