Why would I give two sh*ts if you work?And what's the deal about being a productive member of society and paying taxes? If it's extortion seems like I'm better off not paying it.

Anyways yes it makes perfect sense. You're question begging, ether you admit that property itself is extortion itself as it removes scarce resources from others without their consent or you admit that property isn't extortion because people are entitled to it but not entitled to property provided through taxation. That will bring us to the real topic of conversation all along that libertarians try to avoid with this talk of coercion and violence, that is who is entitled to what? People have different opinions and libertarians are but one of many, all of which can claim that violence outside the justifications of their system of property rights is extortion.

I think youve confused me with someone else

Probably, I thought you were proph

See how it feels when posters only comprehend one post at a time, instead of the entire breadth of your philosophy? (Especially when they only read the first sentence! It's frustrating sometimes.)

You've touched a nerve with Hue!

You suddenly turned this into an allegory for taxation.

As if it weren't obvious enough before already, you're clearly using your liberty to infringe on others, now.

yet we've had many ACists ITF and ITT argue that the are entitled to a piece of land as soon as they fence it and do something productive with it.

Fencing in land is a means to protect and declare property.

How do you view this as entitlement?

Why are you entitled to keep that land in perpetuity just by putting up a fence?

Furthermore, can I place a fence inside a fence and then claim the area within my fence is now my property

You're not entitled.

The fence is a means to protect your property, which helps you enforce your property rights.

Because it's quite literally that: a (very primitive) way of claiming the title to a piece of land.

People are just going to let you have it, huh?

Does anyone else claiming to be the proprietor care?

.

You mean, like a city within a state within a nation?

The fence is illusory, but still considered by some to be a fence nonetheless.

When you finally get to the nearest, smallest microcosm, you end up at the single person, which is you.

No one is going to make sure that your rights are enforced or protected, but you.

That doesn't answer the question. You are away, on business or whatever, and I have enough time to build a fence within your fence. The property is now mine and I am able to protect it as you said. Am I correct or not?

But what's to stop the 4%(?) of humanity that dgaf about not taking someone's property without their consent?
Who's is going to oversee the imprisoning of these baddies to make sure that that 4%(?) who haven't been caught or outed don't corrupt the penal...situation? Perhaps some would even be unfair and inhumane jailers. (It's not the penal system, right?)

Am I going to attempt to take it back?

If not, I guess it's yours.

If so, you had better hope that people aren't on the other guy's side; which would be likely, since it's more sensible that you're infringing on the businessman's property than the other way around. They might decide to help me. (I guess when you hopped the fence, you thought you were getting out. )

Even if the people aren't on the previous owner's side, what stops him from taking matters into his own hands and forcing you off the land anyway? Your fence?

Rhetorically and obviously, no. You defending yourself is how you protect your property.

Well, it has taken us a while, but we have finally arrived at the essential nature of anarchy: might makes right. Sounds awesome!

Responsible citizens, of course.

Surely you have taken a look at the currently broken penal system?

Maybe part of the problem is that it is a system built around penalizing people with penalties. People get penalized with penalties over and over again, and eventually peeps just can't take the penalizations anymore. (Only the most sadistic of people enjoy penal ties!)

But, seriously, the system should center around rehabilitation rather than punishment; assuming that the intent of such an entity as the prison-industrial complex is based on improving society in the first place, which may be questionable.

We're livin' it, bruh!

So the wild west then. You are advocating that we return to the frontier days of the 1840's. Do you understand that?

What's the rehabilitation plan for the guy who jumped your fence, built his own fence, and declares the land his? A gun to the head?

Center around rehabilitation rather than punishment? I've read that treatment can make these types more effective maniputors, so downsides should be weighed along with a (hopefully) realistic view of what the possible upsides of treatment are, and about how likely some can be reformed. The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour, some cannot be released just because they say the right things in a clinical or educational or empathetic or psychiatric setting.

And thus, our solution to set up a system of government funded by taxation is a perfectly acceptable way of ordering our society?

Jesus Christ. Its gonna turn into The People Under The Stairs.

Dude, some people aren't so strong at this skill, it's probably why we collectively called for those who are strong at it to step forward and use that skill for the benefit of others.