That wasn't my definition. It was the one supplied (and implicitly agreed to) by myrkul. You want to expand upon it? Go ahead.
So you are saying that the mere threat of initiation of force upon my property is NOT coercion. Coercion exists when the threat of initiation of force upon my property is dependent on my performing an act I am unwilling to do?
Right?
If you are willing to pay your taxes, then by definition it can't be coercion since you are willing, making it voluntary. Inversely, if you aren't willing to pay those taxes, then coercion IS necessary to make you pay them. Are you incapable of reading a dictionary and drawing basic conclusions?
Hey it's Mr. You-can't-prove-a-negative!
Just in case you missed all the...you know...
words pointing to this fact. I'm not asking for
examples of your (or bitcoin2Cash's or myrkul's) definition I'm asking for you to
validate my restatement of said definition.
It's actually a common theme used in various models of argumentation. Why is it so few here actually know how to make a point?
