> Those are not analogous situations. One is a natural development of the progression of extending rights, And so is the other. > another is an impossible sit

> Those are not analogous situations. One is a natural development of the progression of extending rights, And so is the other. > another is an impossible situation of an entirely voluntary legal system without any downsides for bad actors. This is a convenient excuse to justify the expropriation of rents and property by bad actors who seek to use the color of government to impose their own values on the rest of us. > Pretty sure hunter-gathers can levy and pay taxes. You’re mistaken. Foraging populations lack the material surplus to pay taxes and the resources to fund a coercive apparatus tasked with extracting them. > That is again likely the fundamental source of our disagreement: the definition of coercion, and whether if coercion of some sort is inevitable. Agreed. I hope you understand that the burden of proof is on you to show that it is inevitable or desireable. > One useful historical example: the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against taxation without representation, among other reasons, against the British crown. Shortly after, those same Founding Fathers behind the revolution put down the same former veterans of that war with violent force during Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. So there you go. So much for liberal tolerance. Not to praise them for doing that, but it doesn't exactly show that it is possible to govern without coffers. Yes, and? You’re arguing that they had no choice but to suppress the whiskey tax protestors? There was literally no other option? > Because the "rest of us" pay taxes I did not realize that human rights were contingent on payment of the Danegeld. Does this mean that slavery is justified in the case of a slave who hasn’t paid his taxes? > and follow laws without coercion. [citation needed] > You might as well call robbers and thieves a persecuted minority for rejecting the inherent violence that is property rights. How is property rights inherent violence? > And thus your definition of homesteading has never ever existed in the history of man, or indeed any organism. This is an incredibly ignorant statement and I’m uninterested in attempting to educate someone who appears to have such a closed mind. You’re wrong and if you care that you’re wrong, you’ll reconsider. > What I support or not is immaterial to the conversation at hand. I’ve been assuming good faith, was that incorrect? Is this some attempt to troll me? > Technically, the Plains Indians outnumbered the settlers and did not constitute a minority population. The plains indians are a revisionist attempt at characterizing distinct, unfriendly, and warring populations as a homogenous body. > Rather, they were wiped out by disease, inferior weaponry and tactics, decimation of bison herds, and attacks by rival tribes. The point is they either had property rights in the land, which were violated; or they did not, and there’s no basis upon which to look askance at their expropriation. > To some degree, yes, by definition and by necessity. Coercion can be minimized and bound by frameworks of human rights. It is up to the critic to come up with a completely alternative system. On what basis do you criticize expropriation of native populations? Its just as necessary as taxation and prohibitions against nudity and jaywalking. That is to say, “not the least bit necessary.” > The debate has also made it clear that the issue really isn't about taxation, or property, at all. The issue is about the nature of law, of whether it is possible to create a society that doesn't involve coercion at some level. Thats true, except we’ve already established that coercion is unnecessary. The task is to get other people to realize that and willingly abandon their coercive measures. Or, if they disagree, and feel that coercion is necessary, for them to perform the basic step of attempting to justify their committment to coercion and violence. > Really, all of this debate could just be centered on jaywalking bans or public decency laws as it has to do with taxation. Not really, as taxation is coercive appropriation of economic value. We could easily express public decency and jaywalking as components of the terms of service that one agrees to in order to access another person’s property. Taxation is a claim on the product of another person’s labor or body. Its more akin to slavery and rape than jaywalking. > All of which abide by common agreement backed by coercion. Why would they need to coerce people, if they agreed to it? You must mean that some people have agreed to cooperate to coerce others. If this is fine, then I see no basis on which to criticize expropriation of the Lakota. > Those who choose to flout the court system are penalized. Those foolish Lakota, choosing the flout the colonists, tsk tsk. When will people learn that it is necessary that someone else threaten you with violence and take your things?