> 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.

Exactly, which is why rents and property should be abolished alongside taxes.

> Foraging populations lack the material surplus to pay taxes and the resources to fund a coercive apparatus tasked with extracting them.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4500088?seq=1

> You’re arguing that they had no choice but to suppress the whiskey tax protestors?

It demonstrates that taxes are inescapable even in a society that ostensibly was founded on not paying taxes, to the point that the same society crushes those who are in arrears.

> [citation needed]

Yes, for the definition of coercion!

> How is property rights inherent violence?

See upthread.

> 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.

So you continue to insist on labeling me, but the point is that the ideas exist independently of labels and must be dealt with on their own merits.

> I’ve been assuming good faith, was that incorrect? Is this some attempt to troll me?

Just as philosophy begins with doubt, so also a life that may be called human begins with irony.

> The plains indians are a revisionist attempt at characterizing distinct, unfriendly, and warring populations as a homogenous body.

And there were more of them than homesteaders.

> 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.

Ah, and here is a potential tangent into different cultures' conceptions of land rights, particular those of nomadic or animist backgrounds.

> That is to say, “not the least bit necessary.”

Very well, then describe a society that can operate without taxation or public decency laws, so far you have been promising a plan without explaining it.

> established that coercion is unnecessary

No, we haven't. We haven't even defined what coercion is.

> 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.

But not all forms of taxation are based on income or wealth. There are consumptive taxes. There are taxes that are more akin to fees. And all taxes can also be expressed as membership fees for citizenship, irrespective of economic value.

> Taxation is a claim on the product of another person’s labor or body.

Sales taxes and VAT surely aren't. Land value taxes are not. You are conflating all forms of taxation with income or wealth taxes.

> Why would they need to coerce people, if they agreed to it?

Why would anyone need to be coerced to pay taxes, if they agreed to pay them? How many tank divisions does the IRS have?

Civil courts can levy penalties. Are those penalties coercive, or are they agreed by those who agree to be bound by the court? Then, are taxes coercive, or agreed by those who agree to accept citizenship?

> When will people learn that it is necessary that someone else threaten you with violence and take your things?

Actually, the Lakota are a revisionist attempt at characterizing distinct, unfriendly, and warring populations as a homogenous body.

https://www.nebraskastudies.org/en/1850-1874/native-american...