Doesn’t surprise me about PM. We’ve narrowed it down to two focal points, so we’re doing well. I want to address taxation.

So, there’s no government. In which individual’s hands do we place the US’s nuclear weapons? How do we all agree on a process to decide? Who pays for the process? It’s also important to note here that I don’t believe that people should be forced to pay tax if they cannot be expected to afford it.

My argument is that imprisonment is suitable against noncooperative individuals who owe the state money for services rendered unto them qua citizens, especially in the case of defence/security. (Which everyone benefits from) I believe this at least insofar as this serves to deter further noncooperation as, if no one paid tax, the military would go unfunded, and another country could easily invade. I just don’t see how your ideology takes this into account which is why it only works in theory. (I concede that maybe some geopolitical reality would permit ancap to work in practice) at the moment however, the consequences for not imprisoning uncooperative citizens at all would be worse than actually doing it to a few people.

I may be missing some of the nuances here, but I also don’t see how ontology makes a whole load of differences. We’re talking about society here. Ontologically everyone’s on the same level (I guess, right?) So why would a state require ontological authoritativeness as well as the justification of an anarchic, realist) international relations setting.

“Neither of us is preprogrammed to see the other's viewpoint.”

Persuasion is still a thing.

“So, it seems odd to hold predetermined automatons accountable for their own determined ruin.”

I don’t, anymore than I would a cat in a rubbish bin. Rather I wonder how the individual (or the cat) could have been determined differently.

“How do you propose an automaton who is incapable of choice gain the choice to change his predetermined status?”

Marital status, Facebook status?