There is a nice way to put what you said. You're claiming that my views are only opinions, not facts. I agree with that. There's what is known as the is-ought gap. There's no fact about whether or not you should engage me in debate or simply shoot me in the head to get what you want. However, once you agree to certain ground rules, it logically follows that taxation and other forms of involuntary interactions aren't legitimate.
Kind of sugar coating the truth. The set of rules which force the conclusion that "taxation is wrong" includes the rule "taxation is wrong". The problem, isn't finding a set of premises which force some conclusion. It's getting a set of premises which are mutually agreed on which force a conclusion.
I can prove to you that stealing is wrong but once you agree that it is, you have to abandon taxation.
Let's see if I can tell you bitcoin2cash's argument. Well obviously it's going to head toward taxation === stealing.
Which will of course require the definition of "stealing". Let's take a stab at that - maybe something like. Stealing is taking something which doesn't belong to you? Which of course brings us to the definition of the term "belong". Which is, as others have mentioned outside of crazy religious ideas is purely a social construct. Ok now we have a problem. Since it's a social construct it's the result of what people agree to however clearly not everyone can have a completely different idea as to what ownership is. Clearly everyone's ideas of this are not the same. bitcoin2cash has to believe that 'belong' means any and all rights are his/hers. Except the right to harm (in various ways) other people or their property and he has to believe that every other persons beliefs are incorrect. Now again this belief probably can't be proved. I'm sure s/he will call it "axiomatic". So this belief has to be irrational.
What did I used to say about bitcoin2cash - that all s/hes doing is wrapping is presuppositions in his definitions? Also known as begging the question.
Now you're ignored. Congratulations.
I guess your beliefs are safer if nobody disagrees with you.
I think this clarifies our points. Despite much fanfare how the ignore-athon is about curbing insults. That is the use of invective. It's actually about wanting to shut out ideas you don't like. Let me be clear that bitcoin2cash has every right, in my book to avoid talking about things he is uncomfortable talking about - however he has no right to lie about why he's doing it.