> The winner of the election is someone all citizens have indirectly sworn oaths of loyalties vis-a-vis the Constitution.

Respectfully, this is nonsense. The constitution is not an oath, citizens have not sworn to it, and you have yet to substantiate its moral authority. Its just a document that doesn’t support what you’re claiming about it.

> Again, this is the same as nearly every other law in existence. When did you consent to laws governing public decency?

It is not the same as laws that prohibit crimes against persons, and I already conceded that public decency laws are analogous to taxation.

> Who dictates the nature of property rights? Who determines what is logical?

The nature of property rights is constituted by the human instinct for territory and assignation of the same innate moral value to all humans is the equilibrium result of repeated negotiations. As for logical thought, it is the emergent result of a species competing for resources in a universe with objective facts. Real-world logical consistency creates circumstances for creatures with brains that comprehend logic to make productive inferences about the world.

> That is steering dangerously into the territory of justifying taxation, on the basis of wealth inequality has detrimental affects for society.

Not at all. What I described is a process that individuals do with each other. If you feel that you have a claim on the basis of wealth inequality, then you’re free to tender that claim to whoever’s massive wealth is the cause of the alleged wrong against you. That gives you an opportunity to show damages, so you can substantiate your claim against the person whose wealth was so cruel to dare to not belong to you.

> If you argue that it is harmful to destroy one's property in such a way that it negatively affects others', then you open the door to claiming that it is harmful to hoard one's earnings.

You missed the point. Its not harmful for him to destroy his property. Its harmful for him to destroy others property. His act of burning his own house is fine. Whatever he does that affects other people is up to them to decided if they are fine with it or not. No one is arguing that he can’t (not permitted) burn his own house period. He can’t (is not per itted to) burn other people’s houses (against their wishes) period; even if the technique he uses to burn other people’s houses would be permitted otherwise.

> This sounds exactly applicable for someone who thinks taxation is illegitimate.

How? You’re already taking food off my plate, thats what taxation is.

> That is an argument to reforming a system so it doesn't act as a protection racket, but is instead progressive and correctly redistributes wealth

No, its merely an argument against the protection racket. You don’t get to bring in your own terrible system to replace another terrible system. We have agreed the protection racket is bad, now we get rid of that, we’re not putting you in charge of a protection racket so you can run it according to your preferences.

> in a way guided by fairness and ability and that is acceptable by all parties.

Well if you’re proposing taxes be opt-in, or even voluntary, then that changes everything. If taxes required consent then they would be fine.

> So, if you oppose taxation, then you should also oppose property.

Absolutely not, what part was unclear? I oppose the state expropriating people by force. How does that imply that I should oppose property?