The Michael Perspective! Part 2.5

Principles, Contradictions, and Pleas

Figured this may convince people for/against Anarcho-capitalism

1. Voluntaryist principle- the assertion that all legitimate forms of human interaction should be voluntary rather than forced. In order for the State to exist, they must extort or coerce you out of a portion your property, and in order for them to maintain power over you they must use physical force, which is illegitimate the vast majority of the time (and for legitimate crimes, such as rape, murder, theft, etc, we do have arbitration solutions funded by the market) is this interaction voluntary, or is it forced?
Principle 2. Self-ownership. You are an individual and you inherently own your own body in its entirety and you are to be held directly responsible for the consequences of your own actions. In turn, you also own property, which is the product of your life and liberty or the traded product of someone else's labor (IE, capitalism). When the State takes a portion of your earnings in order to fund their services, they are taking a portion of the product of your life and liberty, and taking a portion of your labor makes you a slave, at least when it comes to the portion of your product that they unjustly stole.
Principle 3. The NAP, or non-aggression principle, is the principle which states that the initiation of coercion (IE force or fraud; theft, extortion, rape, murder etc. are all legitimate crimes) is always wrong. When the State takes your property from you via taxation, they are initiating coercion, and therefore the existing State is a gang of criminals, not a legitimate form of authority.
Contradiction A. You cannot give someone other than yourself rights which you yourself do not have, the State must be held accountable for their own terms. If it's wrong for you to steal (even if you're giving to the poor or providing some sort of "public service) what makes it right for the State to do so? If it's wrong for you to initiate coercion, why is it okay for the State to do so? It is impossible for the State to fund any one of its programs or to have or maintain any authority over you without first initiating the illegitimate act of coercion, and therefore the State cannot exist without constant contradiction.
Contradiction B, the concept of power. Does power over other people primarily attract good people or bad? Power primarily attracts evil people and it corrupts most of the once good people who may have craved it. If power primarily attracts evil people, then by giving people power over us we are logically empowering majorly evil/corruot people. If those who give out the orders are evil, is it not our duty as moral men to oppose this villainy in all forms?

"The anarchist seeks to shrink and eventually eliminate the monopoly state as punishment for its moral and practical failings, but we can and should revel in the way it is continually being outmatched and outpaced as well.

"What's more, the absence of a government is not synonymous with the absence of order or even rule of law. Most people systematically overlook the ways in which their lives are already ordered by nonstate forces and in which the welfare of others is supported through noncoercive methods. Private legal regimes exist all around us; they govern our dating apps, our homeowners associations, our credit cards, our Twitter streams, our charitable giving, and a whole lot more. Yes, they are imperfect, but they are also more likely to fail when the money stops rolling in due to those imperfections, rather than stealing more of your money to grow ever larger as the state nearly always will."

-Reason.com, Debate: be an Anarchist, not a Minarchist," September 2018

Also, dear Nick Gillespe, if the phrase "taxation is theft" bothers you, would the phrase "taxation is extortion" be better?

Taxation: "a compulsory contribution to state revenue."

Because that's exactly what it is, key word being "compulsory."