The part in bold is key. You need to realize that I want all human interactions to be voluntary. If people voluntarily come together and create a government and economic system, that's exactly what I want. It could be capitalism, communism, syndicalism, whatever. The key is that it's voluntary. If you think that a system that exists exactly like the current one but with the added feature that it's voluntary is a failure of my goals then you clearly don't understand my goals.


I wasn't clear about what kind of government I'm against since, strictly speaking, even a chess club has a government. As I mentioned above, I'm not against governments that are voluntary. I'm not against the chess club voting on a president and passing rules, etc. I'm against government that's forced upon some people against their will, aka states.


If you keep descending into this hostile and rude kind of language, you will find yourself being ignored. I've been nothing but polite to you so I expect the same courtesy. There's no reason why we can't debate this in a calm manner. Nothing we say here is going to make much difference. The stakes are as low as they can be. If you don't have the patience for this then don't bother talking to me.

There is a nice way to put what you said. You're claiming that my views are only opinions, not facts. I agree with that. There's what is known as the is-ought gap. There's no fact about whether or not you should engage me in debate or simply shoot me in the head to get what you want. However, once you agree to certain ground rules, it logically follows that taxation and other forms of involuntary interactions aren't legitimate. I can prove to you that stealing is wrong but once you agree that it is, you have to abandon taxation.