A government without the ability to use force, i.e. specifically to tax, is a government incapable of allowing businesses monopoly and thus the ability to become rich in the first place; this means, without the government to tax the rich, there wouldn't be any rich, for there is nothing to shield a corporation from unethical behavior and nothing to allow a corporation unfair practice among their small-business competition.  Without this use of force, people would be able to work without the expensive governmental overhead, without the laws which steal from the poor to give to the rich in the first place (which effectively removes the need for you to, again, steal from the rich to give back to the poor who would then be stolen from again thanks to government), meaning they would make more and could work less, which means they could afford food, housing, clothes, health care, education, without the need to steal back the money taken from them.  Instead of taking from the people to take care of the people (with all the government waste in between), the most practical, cost-effective and humanitarian approach is to simply not steal from the people in the first place.

Instead of viewing the poor as a bunch of animals that must be cared for by the rich pet owners, why not take your foot off their throat and let them help themselves?  Why do you agree with the horrendous practices of the rich whilst simultaneously claiming you're trying to help the poor?

Furthermore, I detest your skewed representation of "rights".  A right only functions when the parties involved agree upon them and agree to defend them; the idea that rights are granted by government is akin to saying that nobody has rights but what the masters of a given society allow them to have, which do not count as rights, but only as privileges, as you mother and father would give you when you're young, or, as mentioned, the owner of a pet.  This further points out your view of the poor being animals to be owned, and it's repulsive, and I insist that you live up to your claim to believing in morality because this does not cut it.

There would be, if not for all these rules and regulations.

Never knew about this one; I'd stick to water, but that's drugged as well.

I'm fairly certain zhou tonged is black.

I believe I've made my case clear: I'm not a thief, and I will not stoop to their levels.  I'm not advocating against the rich being taxed, I'm advocating against involuntary association.  If the rich can't use force to get their way, they can't be rich through illegitimate means.  Thus, the only rich people of this planet are those who are most valuable to us; I don't want these people taxed, as they are not thieves.

Your system just permeates the current system, where thieves are on the top of the world and continue to exploit as they see fit, except you get to live off other people via stolen money.  Aside from being completely dependent on the state (can you say fascism?), do you see the ethical problem?

Yes, if you lie and steal, you are a thief and liar.  You enable the cycle to continue by admitting that theft and lies are acceptable; eventually you must put your foot down and proclaim that you've had enough, otherwise you're no better than the people who stole and lied to get their way.

Besides, your system is impossible; if you live in a society with a rich 1%, the only way they got there was through government force.  Do you truly believe the rich, who game politics to begin with, are going to agree to simply giving their money away?  You forget the fact that you're advocating an "orts off the table" system, where you're okay with the rich getting rich from the use of coercion, as long as you get a cut from the stolen goods.  This is a very unique definition of justice, I think.

I think becoming a thief and liar because you were stolen from and lied to makes you the same as the men you are against.

The reason being, those models would fall apart without someone at the end of the gun; advocates of taxation must advocate secular involuntary association, otherwise the 1%ers would leave to another society where they wouldn't be taxed, and the people who were being depended on would leave to another society where they wouldn't be; this leaves both the initial nations in shambles.  The idea of taxation mandates there being no alternative; if you allow people the freedom of choice, how could you legally take from them?  They would simply deny you the right; taxation becomes unenforceable under the principle of voluntary association.

I don't think I've ever seen something so perfect.  The only characters I don't quite understand are Parts & Labor, however; can someone elaborate what they represent?

I was unaware these kinds of people actually existed for realsies.  Good thing we have all this government to put a stop to it.

"fad"
"so-called"
"secretly"
"no one is telling you"

Sewing the seeds of doubt takes effort, you know.

We can argue anything is okay if it has benefits; perhaps the holocaust benefited someone who needed a Jew dead.  Naturally, we view the holocaust as a bad thing, because we apply the concepts of ethics.  I personally believe ethics should come standard to any society, otherwise it only collapses in the end; without a clear vision of what's acceptable behavior and what isn't, we get stuck with dichotomies such as, "It's okay for these people to steal and kidnap, but not okay for those people", and law so convoluted that not even lawyers understand it completely, so overdone that the average Joe commits at least one crime daily.  Naturally, anyone who wants to steal and kidnap legally flocks to the first group, and anyone who believes in a virtuous society gets stuck at the wrong end of the gun; it punishes the good and rewards the bad, and I'm certain you would agree that this is not the kind of behavior we should respond positively to, especially not when we have our own laws against theft that do not apply to this special group.

You are arguing that theft is moral if it leads to positive outcomes; this is an impossible position to hold without the belief that not everyone deserves equal rights, with yourself being one of those people who requires less rights than others, which is the most troubling aspect of such a belief; surely you seek the same rights as everyone else, don't we all?  If some people can steal, why can't we all?  Rather, I would prefer it if we all had this right to protect ourselves from thieves, as opposed to the right of robbing everyone, as the former seems sustainable.

Even if the stolen money is used for good deeds, are you not capable of paying for these good deeds voluntarily?  Are there unknown forces of this world which prevents people from paying for the transportation that only the group with special rights can conquer?  It seems unlikely to me.

I believe the powers that be mentioned that it's a glitch and that they're looking into it.

He doesn't have to use it

Unnecessary, vote with your actions in day to day life.

Remove the states from the idea; just let every American individual have an equal vote on who the president will be.  Not every New Yorker and Californian is going to be the same fellow.

The issue with the football manager example is thus: the football manager doesn't force the football players to take advice from him (i.e., if one of the players truly and utterly doesn't believe in his plays, then he will simply quit, as opposed to being thrown in jail in the example of the citizen not following advice (i.e. law) from the state.)  Though I agree that there will always be leaders in this world, for this implies there are some people who are more intelligent or wise or skillful than others (which I believe to be entirely true), they must remain as leaders to be counted as leaders; once a supposed leader imposes himself onto his subjects, he then becomes a ruler.  Certainly societies will have leaders who recommend courses of actions, but if these people are truly fit for such advice, they will naturally accrue a following, rather than forcing people to follow as is the case now (after all, if it's good advice, it would be voluntary, assuming people have rational self-interest which I believe they do.)  As per my political philosophy: so long as it is voluntary.

Anyhow, on the matter of cooperative-competitive relationships: I have such a relationship with my best friend, he and I are writers.  We share advice on the ways we do things because we want to improve; however, we also compete to show one another that this or that can be done better.  It's a benign relationship at best, certainly not the typical view of competition, and there are certainly more writers in the marketplace than just he and I that we must compete against, but I'm a peaceful fellow myself so that's about all there is from me  We can scale this relationship between businesses: two businesses exist in a small area--let's say, within the same suburb--and each sell basics for everyday life, such as bathroom and kitchen supplies, basic groceries, medicine, etc.  They cooperate by agreeing not to impede upon each other's businesses; they won't burn each other's stores down, try to steal each other's customers, and won't make nasty untruthful snarks about the other.  However, they also compete: to gain business, they each must provide something better that the other doesn't, whilst ensuring they offer these as the lowest possible price.  If one tries to charge too much, the other undercuts them and gains business; if the other tries to sell an inferior product, the customers have an alternative to turn to.  If they both attempt it (i.e. price fixing), a third business sprouts up and everyone flocks to them.  They agree to compete and cooperate, just as athletes would in the Olympics; they do not attack each other so that they can get an advantage, they cooperate and compete; just as rival bands would (well, perhaps the milder ones), they do not smash each other's instruments or break the drummer's fingers, they instead compete and cooperate.

We don't always do it tho; you and I cooperate with our talks, but I'm not entirely sure we compete; perhaps if our political ideas differed and we were actively trying to accrue a following into either camp, we'd compete, but I'd rather we got along  Anyway, that's not to say that competition can't eventually disappear; if that business mentioned before did such a tremendous job that the other businesses could not compete at all, then that business becomes a monopoly, but of a different sort we're used to: this monopoly offers the greatest service for the lowest prices, and makes it impossible for others to compete, at least in the area (I doubt a corporation can keep this kind of service and price going universally, but that's just my take on it; it'd be wonderful if this were possible but I have my doubts.)

I do agree somewhat with your assertion of Libertarians and Anarchists of America; I don't think people will naturally and voluntarily agree that certain individuals will be able to keep their stake of power over areas of land.  I think, without the use of force, this land will be much more divided and even among people (what good is land if nobody will agree to work on it?--what good is ownership if none agree to your owning it?), and places of work will not necessarily have an owner, but perhaps, as you mentioned, a leader, and people would then take a much more even cut of the profit, thereby squashing the class divide (mostly; that's not to say some people won't strike it rich with their products, i.e. Notch and Minecraft, but in general people will be much wealthier than before.)  

Well, so long as you're having clean fun.