> Then society will simply have to accommodate just as they accommodated to the extension of human rights to women and slaves.

Those are not analogous situations. One is a natural development of the progression of extending rights, another is an impossible situation of an entirely voluntary legal system without any downsides for bad actors.

> Agriculture

Pretty sure hunter-gathers can levy and pay taxes.

> This is categorically different than negotiation absent coercion.

That is again likely the fundamental source of our disagreement: the definition of coercion, and whether if coercion of some sort is inevitable.

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.

> Why don’t they have the same rights as the rest of us?

Because the "rest of us" pay taxes and follow laws without coercion. You might as well call robbers and thieves a persecuted minority for rejecting the inherent violence that is property rights.

> Thats easy, free association doesn’t justify jaywalking prohibitions or seatbelt mandates.

Correct, because the corpus of laws that are justifiable in your view can fit on the back of a box of cereal.

> not homesteading and not justified under my system

And thus your definition of homesteading has never ever existed in the history of man, or indeed any organism.

> I can’t tell if you support it or not.

What I support or not is immaterial to the conversation at hand.

> The minority Lakota were expropriated because they wanted to keep the habitable areas to themselves when a growing population needed them

Technically, the Plains Indians outnumbered the settlers and did not constitute a minority population. Rather, they were wiped out by disease, inferior weaponry and tactics, decimation of bison herds, and attacks by rival tribes.

> no one was upset except for a handful of bleeding hearts who don’t matter anyway.

Much like the handful of bleeding hearts who are upset when others rebel against the coercive force of property rights. Or the nudists who are oppressed against modesty laws.

> So you agree that governments are coercive?

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.

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. Really, all of this debate could just be centered on jaywalking bans or public decency laws as it has to do with taxation.

> Sometimes they decide to solve their dispute by hearing claims and evidence in the presence of a judge and witnesses.

All of which abide by common agreement backed by coercion. Those who choose to flout the court system are penalized.