> 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 punitive measures. In fact, it can be extrapolated that all of society is coercive, as the societal contract is assumed pre-birth and never formally consented to, and is subject to violence at every level.

> I never said that, I just observed the logical flaws in a particular concept of society.

You did, because you are treating taxation as a critique of pure reason, rather than a concrete policy that exists outside of a vacuum.

> If you think its a worthy ideal, then you can choose to pursue it.

Who says I'm not?

> Thats nonsensical. One might as well call you a pickpocket if I were to steal a wallet and use to buy you ice cream.

It's as nonsensical as you demanding to receive national defense or the ability to drive on public roads while rejecting taxation.

> We are tired of having to bid for services on a market where we must compete with bureaucrats who spend our own money to compete with us.

And you can do all of that without holding the uselessly extremist position of all taxation is theft!

> Much has been written about the crowding out effect of government spending in markets.

Without having to resort to rejecting taxation as a concept from first principles.

> the people who coerce taxes do not recognize the right of exit

No, the problem with the right of exit is that every single society on earth recognizes the necessity of sustaining through taxation. Perhaps you can try exiting to terra nullis or seasteading in international waters. But any society you build will inevitably require taxation at a certain scale. At the very least then you will have accomplished a political experiment to validate your beliefs on the non-necessity of taxes.

> Property is antecedent to state protection.

Property is still dependent upon state protection, as again the institutions of national defense and public courts demonstrate.

> Property is a social arrangement that is sustained through mutual participation. Taxes are extorted unilaterally.

Taxation is likewise sustained through mutual participation. Contrariwise, property can also be extorted unilaterally, as in the case of rents.

> thats why its a more effective means of appropriating value from people who are vulnerable

Tell it to the vulnerable who are dependent upon social services funded by taxation.

> The government claimed the power to ajudicate disputes

That power was freely given by individuals to the government, as there is a need for a neutral third party and a higher authority to appeal to. Without an adjudicative force, the only resort is might makes right.

> Property rights are logically antecedent to this.

Property must originate from somewhere, which would be nature or the public commons. To acquire and then retain property thus requires the use of force. At least according to Proudhon's definition. If you are to accuse all sorts of common concepts of originating in force and violence, then you are living in Proudhon's world. You only have a different bugbear from him.