How much does someone "coexist" with our society if they classify the means of maintaining that society as "theft"?
And how can it be classified as a "necessary evil"? The evil would be the breakdown of the society which could not support itself. The society is a positive force and the means of supporting it should be viewed the same way.

I have no problem with the "governs least" idea as long as it's kept in perspective. A society with few people, limited technology, unlimited resources and space needs less government that one whose members are crowded together, intimately connected to each other and the rest of the globe, and sharing a precarious and limited pool of natural resources.

In all of this theft talk we haven't even discussed the fact that only the existence of a governing structure makes the accumulation of wealth possible to begin with. There are still a few places on the globe where you can go and, with enough money to pay off the local warlord or enough weapons to frighten him, you can do pretty much whatever you please without interference from any government and without paying taxes to anybody. But finding a way to accumulate wealth in such a place will be next to impossible. This country is the best environment the world has ever known for a person not born to wealth and power to accumulate both. There is a cost for leveraging that environment for your own use. That cost is taxes to support the system which can make you rich if you want that and are willing to work for it. To call such a cost "theft" is to ignore the meaning of the word since you are free to reduce your taxes to practically nothing just by giving up your pursuit of the wealth available to those who are willing to pay for the chance.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

My apologies at being too quick on the post button - I thought of a much better response to your previous post but got called away before I could edit my reply.

1) They simply live in an overlapping geographic area while considering themselves not actually a part of the surrounding society. 2) Taxation maintains the Government, which is not the same as the Society. 3) I expect you agree what this was not a good response to your earlier post, so I'm happy to drop this line of reasoning as silly, drivel, or whatever appropriate perjorative you'd care to apply.

There are many necessary evils. Disciplining children, punishing murderers, defensive warfare, and lying "No, that dress doesn't make you look fat" are perhaps the best of perhaps innumerable examples. They are Necessary evils because, while the action is in and of itself 'bad', the consequences of foregoing the action are most likely worse. Thus such actions should be taken judiciously so that the lesser of the two evils is, in fact, lesser.

I agree. However taxation is support of the Government, not the Society. Government, in turn, is instituted to support society. (Let's ignore for the moment government's intended primarily to control society, or where the society itself is largely unjust.) But governmental actions are not always supportive of society, and sometimes even harmful to the underlying society, and thus should not automatically be looked upon as positive.

Ah, so if someone came to your house and said "Take off your clothes and lie on the bed, or I will variously destroy your property or burn down your house, since I am the only reason you can afford those things anyway" then That's okay, assuming it's an honest accounting of your options?

Children should be thankful to, not resentful of, of a parent whose quick swat on the bottom kept the child from coming to some greater harm, but that doesn't change the fact that it was, in abstract, assault and battery. I'm not denying that our society provides the most opportunity of any or that some level of taxation is necessary in any sizeable, realistic society, but that doesn't change the fact that taxation is, in abstract, extortion, and thus theft.


Meanwhile, to better address your earlier post...
Yes, there is a continuum of consent, but this then implies a continuum of non-consent and thus a continuum of theft. Absent enforcement, roughly 99% of people would still not commit murder. Thus elimination of the freedom to murder is highly consentual and thus not theft. Absent enforcement, roughly 99% of people would Not pay all their taxes in full. Thus taxation is highly Non-consentual and thus theft. I'm sure there are gray areas where one can argue percentages and what should or should not be considered theft, but these two examples are pretty cut and dried.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian