You do need to be mad, because you need the exact same system to protect your property rights or your entire philosophy falls apart.

"You can't force anyone to do anything" and "This bit of property belongs to me, you need to pay me for access to it" are not logically compatible.

Libertarian isn't anarchist.

I think most libertarians would agree with the idea that a government should be kept as small as possible while still being able to protect property rights. They're generally capitalists as well, and the primary drivers there are individual choice and property rights.

I know. That's why "taxes are theft" and "try not paying your taxes and see what happens" is sophomoric bullshit.

It's a state enforcing something. Which you've just admitted is fine when it enforces something you like.

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here.

For one, I never said I myself am libertarian or anarchist.

Your logic here seems circular, but maybe I just misunderstood. It seems reasonable to me that someone who is libertarian and accepts the need for a state but wants it limited to only, or primarily, protecting property rights would admit that its fine to have a government enforce things they like.

If someone takes issue with having a government at all they're left with anarchism as the only choice. That's all well and good, people can have the opinion that a state is never justified. That doesn't mean libertarians can't believe in a form of government with whatever limitations they deem reasonable or worth the risk, though.

'If I break the law the government enforces the law' implies 'I should be able to break the law with no consequence' implies 'libertarianism is anarchist'.

Sure, but where are you getting these quotes and what is the context you plucked them out of?

A libertarian would not argue that laws can be broken without consequence. They would argue what laws should exist and where the governments authority begins and ends, but that is a very different conversation.

An anarchist would argue that laws and governments shouldn't exist, period. They therefore wouldn't argue that laws can be broken without consequence, they would take issue with the presumption that laws should exist in the first place.

Choose not to pay your mortgage. What happens? They take your house. Does that make mortgages theft? No, it doesn't.

What makes something "theft" is that it's an illegitimate taking. The only way you can say that about taxation is to have already defined government as being illegitimate. Then (and only then) taxes are theft.

But if someone hasn't already made "all governments are illegitimate", then arguing that they'll take things from you if you don't pay taxes isn't the convincing argument you seem to think it is.

> Choose not to pay your mortgage. What happens? They take your house. Does that make mortgages theft? No, it doesn't.

You opt-in to having a mortgage and agree to terms.

I'm not aware of such an option for taxes or citizenship. If you are born in on US soil you are made a citizen, including all the legal rights and benefits as well as the tax liability.

Well, if I understand correctly, there was the option of becoming an outlaw - literally someone outside the law, which meant that the protection of the law didn't apply to you. Anyone you met was free to kill you. But you didn't have to pay taxes.

But if you want the protection of what taxes pay for - the rule of law - then you need to pay the taxes.

I think the question would be protection of what laws though.

Only an anarchist would argue that governments and taxes, or some other form of funding, shouldn't exist.

The debate between anyone else is where the line should be drawn and what the government should have authority to legislate and then enforce.