Wrong. You made an assertion that one can own property without self-ownership. We are determining how, and the burden of proof lies upon you.

I'm not even an anarchist, but this line of reasoning is faulty on your part.  The early American colonists established ownership via homesteadong. The marked off a plot of and that no one seemed to have yet, and began to work it.  There was even a term for it at the time, 'corn rights'.  Only later did a state arise and recognize those existing claims.  A community is required, but a community does not a government make.  An ancap society is as likely to be communal as any other.

Regardless if you have state governments or republic representation, it is still and government and they historically have required taxes for certain basic services.  Up to this point, AnCap advocates can not handle having a "required" tax.  That has been the real hangup.  They somehow think this come into this world with no required claims to them.   Honestly I think that notion is ridiculous.   Look, I want to pay a small a tax that is reasonable but the thought of none at all is just odd and I am quite sure I would see a decline of service.

Homesteading is over with, all land has claim so it is pointless to talk about that in current days.   If we are going to discuss proposals, they should have a realistic path to be implemented.   AnCap has not such path at this time other than a violent revolution,  we would be against a large portion of their core beliefs. 

Yeah, yeah... I think I can answer that one: via "homesteading" and all that. However, your appeal to 'legitimacy' seems hypocritical. Surely legitimacy is a community value, not an individualist value? By claiming that some methods (of e.g.: applying the label of "private property" to hitherto unspoiled lands) possess legitimacy, it sounds like you're rationalising your greed/territorial instincts. As an individualist, you don't really believe in legitimacy, since that is an appeal to an external authority such as a community with majority rule.

With what?
And how did the original owner get the claim on the land?

wtf is nation-states?

Well, yes, we are making a little progress. You feel that land is something you should be able to own without any other claim on it. But there's a bit of a disconnect. How? How does one establish such a claim on land?

If they can legitimately force you to give it up involuntarily, then their claim is higher to it than yours.

So, I ask again, Who has a higher clam than you to you?

Dalkore, just caught up reading the rest of your arguments. The gist of your claim is that, since you were born in this society that provided you, you now "owe" that society for the things it provided. Fair enough. So, tell me, how much is that debt, exactly, and how can one pay it off? I'm not even suggesting "i paid of my debt, so now I can ignore rules and laws when I'm visiting others or am on public property." Rules that others establish for their own property I'm fine with. I mean, how much do I have to pay to buy back the claims that the state has laid on me and my own property, so that I can be free  to have my own rules on the land I own, and pay taxes only for services  I want?

I asked a question.

Chosen to ignore me, Dalkore?

Such a shame, so soon after calling me a "worthy opponent"

I don't believe they will change, either. There will always be assholes in any society. What will change is whether there is a government to enable the corporation's bad activities. Instead of the people saying "That's wrong!" and the government saying, "Well, it was still perfectly legal," there will only be people saying "That's wrong!"

As for how do we get people to genuinely care about about other people, the environment, and future generations, we don't actually get people to do that now. People already care about that, and they only pass (ineffective) regulations to try to enforce it. People will still care in AnCap society. They will just have to figure out how to enforce those regulations without a government that gets most of it's lobbying funds from the corporations it's trying to regulate (e.g. Boycott bad businesses and anyone dealing with them, use force to protest them, donate to private "awareness" groups who can help spread the message, etc. Imagine if Greenpeace had the funding, resources, and ability to own battleships, instead of rubber boats)

So by what authority does the "codified taxation system" have on your property other than just a bunch of people want to take your stuff?

So, again, we're back to: Who owns you?

Because you directly contradicted it. Your body is your original property. From it, come all other property claims. You didn't actually bother to Google "self-ownership" didja?

Who owns your body?

Occupy had a government -- a group of people in charge of making decisions on others' and others' resources behalf -- , and it was called GA.  And just like any other government, it quickly became corrupt and ineffective.  The only reason it didn't last any longer is because they had competition (the established governments of the cities) and the competition had guns.

Have you watched the video yet? It's only 8 minutes.

I don't want, and never wanted, to blame "governments".  They don't exist.  All there is, is people doing things.

I blame the belief in the virtue of a group who perpetrates organized aggression to parasitize everyone else.  People under the influence of this belief, whether members or victims of this group, are the ones who believe that governments exist.  Not me.

What you see in observable reality is nothing more than (a) a tiny minority of people telling you what to do and how much to pay so they will let you live unharmed (b) a gaggle of people who incorrectly believe that the first group are their saviors and protectors, and worship them as a result of this incorrect belief.

That is, to me, the essence of statism.  It is to recoil in horror when watching an aggressor murder another, then to watch the exact same scene with the aggressor in a blue costume, only to say "well, he had it coming".  It is to feel terrified about being robbed of half of what you have, but paying up every April 15th with an unease that is hard to explain away.  It is to talk shit about Halliburton while celebrating the paid murderers in green costumes.  It is to cry in awe as the President sheds tears for the death of 20 children, when he himself has ordered the firebombing of 2000.  It is that level of irrationality.  That is statism.

The problem isn't "totalitarianism".  It never was, not in the slightest.  The problem really isn't "aggressive people using too much aggression".  The problem is the belief that a bunch of aggressive people are virtuous and protect you.  That very belief, that the aggressive people are authorized and righteous to use aggression, is precisely what enables the aggressive people to murder everyone else, with total impunity.

If you think for a second that you live in a human farm, where you're farmed for your labor, and suppressed if you become a problem for the farmers, then the distinction between "totalitarianism" and "democracy" becomes very easy to figure out: both are merely methods to organize the farm.

The belief that a human being is righteously authorized to murder, brutalize, or cage another human being, as punishment for peacefully resisting an order, is not a totalitarian belief -- it is a statist belief.  Democide is not caused by totalitarianism -- it is caused by statism.

Sorry, starting to get burned out on all the malignancy. Maybe it's just willful ignorance.

Step one on your trail, you have to realize that rules and regulations exit to protect corporations, not to restrict them. Many regulations are structured in such a way that only the corporations can afford to follow them, essentially keeping all smaller competitors off the market. Also, business people know business very well, while politicians who pass laws do not. So any laws and regulations that get passed are often written by the corporations themselves. The most egregious offense in regards to this abuse is corporations helping pass regulations that either make what what do actually legal, even if it is unethical, or they pass regulations with suggested fines, which when levied are actually way too small to punish. Heck, look what happened when BP spilled oil in the Gulf. All their safety regulations were followed, because they wrote them, and the regulators were too incompetent to follow up on and enforce them, and the "huge" fine they had to pay, which they got in exchange for not being allowed to be sued by anyone else, was tiny and way less than the cleanup cost.
In an AnCap state, the first thing that may go is the corporation's "limited liability" status. If the person running it fucks up, HE has to answer for that, not the shareholders out of who's stock the fines get paid out of. The second thing will be that there wont be a government with its laws making what the corporation is doing "legal." If it's not screwing people, it will do well. If it is, it wont have a  veil of "legality" to protect it. Here's another thing: what do you think will happen now if a corporation screwed people so much that the people decided to go beyond simple boycotts, and staged a violent protest, trying to kick the corporation out of their area? In AnCap nation, either the corporation will have to leave, or it will have to spend enormous amounts on private security 24 hours a day. Now, the corporation has such a security force, in the form of the police force and US military, providing that security protection for them for free, paid for by taxing those very same people who are protesting!

In short, misbehaving in an AnCap setting will likely be much more expensive than playing by the rules and staying ethical,  which is very much not the case now. What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?