If "the State is us" and "taxation is voluntary", as socialists from the "left and right" alike tell us, then why is it that: there is no opt-out provision of this "social contract", you can't be exempt from its legislation or the giving-up of our property to it, "you consented to everything we do to you", "if you don't vote then you can't complain", and "you can leave if you don't like it?"
I thought "voluntary" (a concept which must be based in the private property ethic of the non-aggression principle) meant that there are no consequences for not going along with something, say, a gang of criminals' demands at gunpoint that you submit to their monopoly's every decree because they call themselves "the government?" Nowhere else in life, whether a romantic, sexual, platonic, or business relationship, or among family members or strangers, is it expected that anyone has a supreme right to control the use of one's property, in their physical body or in their physical property.
The non-aggression principle of libertarianism applied equally everywhere logically results in anarchism. If you believe that when an individual violates the [property] rights of another individual, be it physical harm, theft, rape, etc., that it is a crime, then no exception should be made for the existence of this violently involuntary organization, "the State", which asserts authority over everyone under its claimed territory. If there is never a time when initiating aggression (not to be confused with the use of defensive violence) against someone can be considered just between individuals, then we cannot accept the existence of the State as its actions are no more virtuous or honorable than the private criminal.
Although most people naturally understand that human rights are property rights and property rights are human rights, these principles are balked upon as the State is ideologically awarded impunity to commit those same things it's said are immoral when done so privately, by any two or more people. Thus in a "social" context, if we could say, "democratic socialists", or anyone, will quickly concede that these things are wrong; that rights violations against privately acting individuals ("consenting adults") is criminal and anti-freedom. They see good and well the government has no business telling them who they can associate with in their personal lives, inside their homes, but however see a necessary role for government when "business" is being conducted, where any beliefs previously held on rights of the individual are abandoned.
Our "economic lives", of exchanging economic goods and services, should be just as private as our social lives, where perhaps sexual favors are exchanged, drugs are used, homosexuals are making nude pyramids, or whatever other "social issues" are being conducted that are already widely accepted to be in need of freedom. We libertarians don't see 'the home' in need of a different set of legal principles than 'the business': both are privately owned and their exclusive use henceforth is limited only in that it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
But where the socialist may be decent on "social liberties", to do those aforementioned things, they suddenly come up entirely short when this is involving economic exchanges and physical property outside of issues related more toward "personal freedoms." Here, perceiving government as a useful social institution that can correct problems in the world, they wish to tax and control such private life in its entirety, clamoring for the State to intervene in every way. Surely they wouldn't wield any of their charges they do against businesses, such as "discrimination", against the individual; that "the Jones family has no right to not let black people eat dinner in their kitchen", as this would come as absurd. For some special reason, capital goods receive unneeded attention from those eager to extort property and dictate private lives. When this property is used in production of economic goods, no longer will anyone moderately-good on civil liberties afford them the same kind of freedom they supposedly desire elsewhere in their lives. Somehow slipping their radar are yard-sales, lemonade stands, Craigslist sales, and other "black market" transactions, which must just be too ridiculous if said to be outright prohibited, and so are mostly left alone.
The only consistent theory of property, though, beginning with what anyone readily accepts in the bodily rights of humans, what we can refer to as self-ownership, is to apply this private ownership (of the self) seamlessly to the private ownership of physical resources, in the capitalist conclusion to our anarchism. If we own ourselves (anarchism), then we must be able to own physical property (capitalism).
Only the libertarian is opposed to all aggression as defined by this ethic. If one can accept self-ownership, but then goes on to deny a human the right to private property they have voluntarily acquired—through original appropriation, trade, gift, inheritance, etc.—by way of taxation, then they do not really believe that one owns themselves; they believe they have a superior claim to the property than the rightful owner does, and that it may be forcefully taken in the name of "the common good." In short, an invasion of anyone's property rights is equally an attack and aggression against their right to self-ownership. Since man is not a self-sustaining unit, and nature does not in general produce economic end-goods ready for consumption, it's necessary for our survival that we appropriate property for ourselves, engage in production, and exchange these titles voluntarily in the market to take advantage of the division of labor.
Underneath the cute cover of democracy that creates a facade of consensuality, where its captivating "elections" and other political shows make us believe what it does is justifiable, the State is institutionalized aggression. It is inherently aggressive, coercing its subjects into participation and association with it and calling this "consent" and "freedom." We must reject the use of aggression, i.e., violations of property rights which the State is founded upon, under any reasoning: for "protection", which requires theft of property; "law", where a sole monopolist legislates in its own favor; "central banking", where it controls the money and inflates to fund its own expansion; "education", where the youth are compulsorily indoctrinated and succumb to the teachings of the government; or for any other issues assuming there are "collective goods" which the abstract "society" must "pay its fair share."
They hold legitimacy only in so far as they can perpetuate these ideas to the people, through academia, the media, pundits, intellectuals, celebrities, etc., leading them to believe that it rests upon a morally sound foundation. But "one law for them, and another law for us" is not an acceptable way to organize society. Since the State says: "I can threaten you, but you may not threaten me", or, "you owe me your property, and taking 'mine' is criminal", the relationship between the people in government—from police, to politicians, or any other members of the state apparatus who all commit the very acts we're told are "against the law", albeit calling them something different (theft is taxation, murder is war, kidnapping is conscription, prison, schooling)—in relation to the so-called "citizens" should be found intolerable immediately.
If only we would universalize our principles, then it would be seen: The State is the enemy of liberty.