> So you would agree with me that its immoral to collect taxes from someone who has neither voted for you not sworn an oath of loyalty? As opposed to the current system where the winner of the election exerts authority over the entire populace.

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

> Its nonconsensual and results in one party benefitting at the expense of the other.

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

> Whereas an acceptable law, such as prohibitions against murder codifies conduct between peers (people with the same status).

What makes laws against murder acceptable? When did you consent to them?

> Essantially this is a statutory codification of parasitism

Right, like rentiership.

> Clearly this is abuse, just like a law specifying who we were allowed to murder.

The state holds a monopoly on sanctioned murder, via warfare and the death penalty. If your moral system believes the right to life to be more important than the right to property, surely those are of higher priority than taxation.

> its not possible to do without taxation without having identified any difficulties

No, the issue is your comparison of taxation to marital rape is a non sequitur explained by aforementioned reasons. Furthermore, the existence of a model for abolition does not mean there is a model for its replacement.

> The nature of property rights only begets logically consistent arrangments, on this basis logically inconsistent or incoherent arrangements are not recognized.

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

> conditions have been met for other people to intervene proportionately or tender a claim for damages

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

> Why would I or anyone else allow Proudhon to dictate the nature of property to us?

In the context of a discussion that mentions Proudhon, a clarification of his intentions is pertinent.

> So when you find a person who thinks property is illegitimate, try a simple experiment.

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

> Which is why its so depressing for people to defend the protection racket when it extorts the working class (taxes)

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

> assert that the working class doesn’t deserve to own anything anyway because “property is a system of oppression used to oppress the working class.”

But I don't actually believe in Proudhon.

> Yes, and this is why we oppose taxation.

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

> Thanks for your replies and thanks for enduring the downthread squeeze with me.

Anytime. Here's to many more posts in this productive conversation.