Taxes are a form of Theft

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Ummm, no.

As a citizen it is your duty to pay taxes to the government so that the government can develop the nation. Taxes are only theft if nothing is being done with the taxes, which are supposed to benefit the nation and its citizens.

the government isn't some kind of a Robin Hood

Its more like a Sheriff of Nottingham/Prince John type figure

stealing is stealing, and stealing is wrong, its the intention (did they intend to deprive and appropriate)... NOT what the money will then be used to buy

The government does use taxes to benefit the nation/state in one way or another. As many have stated, including myself, the government uses revenue from taxes towards public works like roads, water supply, waste reclamation, defense, public safety, education, among many other things. Without taxation, none of that would exist or would exist in limited quantities or poor quality. You can't expect the government to give you these "gifts" as you call them without having the money to even pay for them. These things cost money and government workers and employees do not work for free, just like you wouldn't work for free. How do you expect any of the public works you rely on to be funded?

[Galloism]

the government isn't some kind of a Robin Hood

Its more like a Sheriff of Nottingham/Prince John type figure

stealing is stealing, and stealing is wrong, its the intention (did they intend to deprive and appropriate)... NOT what the money will then be used to buy

The government does use taxes to benefit the nation/state in one way or another. As many have stated, including myself, the government uses revenue from taxes towards public works like roads, water supply, waste reclamation, defense, public safety, education, among many other things. Without taxation, none of that would exist or would exist in limited quantities or poor quality. You can't expect the government to give you these "gifts" as you call them without having the money to even pay for them. These things cost money and government workers and employees do not work for free, just like you wouldn't work for free. How do you expect any of the public works you rely on to be funded?

Incidentally, we have ample proof of what happens with the tragedy of commons and failure of the government to institute public services.

There is a great miniseries on Netflix called "Filthy Cities" I absolutely recommend. He pointed out that the frozen mixture of human and animal feces, animal entrails, mud, dirt, human and animal urine, runoff from industry, and other noxious things could reach up to six feet high in the winter time in New York City.

They also looked at other cities that almost collapsed due to their own filth and were only saved due to government intervention.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The government does use taxes to benefit the nation/state in one way or another. As many have stated, including myself, the government uses revenue from taxes towards public works like roads, water supply, waste reclamation, defense, public safety, education, among many other things. Without taxation, none of that would exist or would exist in limited quantities or poor quality. You can't expect the government to give you these "gifts" as you call them without having the money to even pay for them. These things cost money and government workers and employees do not work for free, just like you wouldn't work for free. How do you expect any of the public works you rely on to be funded?

Incidentally, we have ample proof of what happens with the tragedy of commons and failure of the government to institute public services.

There is a great miniseries on Netflix called "Filthy Cities" I absolutely recommend. He pointed out that the frozen mixture of human and animal feces, animal entrails, mud, dirt, human and animal urine, runoff from industry, and other noxious things could reach up to six feet high in the winter time in New York City.

I'll have to check that series out then.

Still though, without tax funding those problems would likely be much worse off than they currently are.

[Galloism]

Incidentally, we have ample proof of what happens with the tragedy of commons and failure of the government to institute public services.

There is a great miniseries on Netflix called "Filthy Cities" I absolutely recommend. He pointed out that the frozen mixture of human and animal feces, animal entrails, mud, dirt, human and animal urine, runoff from industry, and other noxious things could reach up to six feet high in the winter time in New York City.

I'll have to check that series out then.

Still though, without tax funding those problems would likely be much worse off than they currently are.

I was talking about before New York City instituted industry regulations and set up an actual city-wide government managed sanitation system.

Now, you don't see six foot high frozen animal shit in the streets. That's a relic of the past. Thank you city government!

[BK117B2]

It should be able to do whatever you agreed for it to do.

Let's assume you lived rent free in the property before, but the corporation decided via vote of the shareholders not to permit that anymore. Those who do not pay rent are required to pack up and leave.

You voted no, but were outvoted.

You are saying that a corporation should never be able to change policy without a unanimous vote?

No, that is not remotely what I am saying....which might explain why I've never posted any such thing

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I'll have to check that series out then.

Still though, without tax funding those problems would likely be much worse off than they currently are.

I was talking about before New York City instituted industry regulations and set up an actual city-wide government managed sanitation system.

Now, you don't see six foot high frozen animal shit in the streets. That's a relic of the past. Thank you city government!

Oh, I see. Thank you city government indeed, the previous situation sounds horrific.

[Galloism]

Let's assume you lived rent free in the property before, but the corporation decided via vote of the shareholders not to permit that anymore. Those who do not pay rent are required to pack up and leave.

You voted no, but were outvoted.

You are saying that a corporation should never be able to change policy without a unanimous vote?

No, that is not remotely what I am saying....which might explain why I've never posted any such thing

So, in the situation proposed, should the corporation have the right to extract rent if you fail to leave the property?

[Galloism]

I was talking about before New York City instituted industry regulations and set up an actual city-wide government managed sanitation system.

Now, you don't see six foot high frozen animal shit in the streets. That's a relic of the past. Thank you city government!

Oh, I see. Thank you city government indeed, the previous situation sounds horrific.

They did london too. Earlier of course.

Same essential issues though, tragedy of commons resulted in immense filth, disease, and death.

[Alvecia]

Wrong.

BK is correct.

I would also like to add, that most people are BORN in a country (as opposed to entering one as an adult) and that from that very moment of birth as a baby (who cannot possibly consent) they are bound by the laws. Laws don't suddenly start operating only if someone enters a country (as I have said countless times but no one understands this subtle point).

I'm going to use the UK as an example because that is where I live.
Up until the age of consent, in the UK, 16, I am not taxed for anything.
After that, there is no point where I will be taxed without first accepting a contract.
If I don't want to be taxed I, being of age, am free to leave and find somewhere I won't be.
So in the UK at least, there are no taxes being imposed upon me without my consent.
Any taxes that are levied upon me are agreed upon and are therefore not theft.

[Finland SSR]

Taxes are not theft, they are the greatest invention man has ever made.

So stop whining and pay up.

[BK117B2]

No, that is not remotely what I am saying....which might explain why I've never posted any such thing

So, in the situation proposed, should the corporation have the right to extract rent if you fail to leave the property?

That's already been answered. Your additional details haven't changed it.


If someone comes up to you in a parking lot as you're climbing in your car, points the barrel of a pistol in your face, and says "get out or I'm going to shoot you", do you think this means staying in your car is consent to getting shot?

You mention that everyone is free to leave. Have you not seen how difficult emigration can be? Thousands of people die every year attempting it. Many more get rounded up and sent back.

[Ifreann]

Ummm, no.

As a citizen it is your duty to pay taxes to the government so that the government can develop the nation. Taxes are only theft if nothing is being done with the taxes, which are supposed to benefit the nation and its citizens.

the government isn't some kind of a Robin Hood

Its more like a Sheriff of Nottingham/Prince John type figure

stealing is stealing, and stealing is wrong, its the intention (did they intend to deprive and appropriate)... NOT what the money will then be used to buy

So if I had some illegal drugs in my house, and the police came along and took my drugs away, you would agree that that would be stealing and stealing is wrong and the police should give me my drugs back.

[Galloism]

So, in the situation proposed, should the corporation have the right to extract rent if you fail to leave the property?

That's already been answered. Your additional details haven't changed it.

If someone comes up to you in a parking lot as you're climbing in your car, points the barrel of a pistol in your face, and says "get out or I'm going to shoot you", do you think this means staying in your car is consent to getting shot?

threat of imminent death is usually considered coercive enough that choice does not exist for legal purposes.

That's not really analogous to a corporation being allowed to charge rent for a property it controls.

It's interesting though that you think a corporation should never be allowed to change prices or terms for existing customers without that customer's free consent to such change. Lacking consent, the corporation must continue to serve the customer under the previous terms forever. Definitely a minority view. Very heavy-handed on the economic control factor.

You mention that everyone is free to leave. Have you not seen how difficult emigration can be? Thousands of people die every year attempting it. Many more get rounded up and sent back.

when they try to do so illegally, you mean. Immigration is not easy, but neither is moving. If you want out, get out.

[Indira]

churches also don't really provide anything tangible, its easy to stay afloat on donations if you don't have to produce anything.

they provide food, shelter, medicine, and basically a smaller version of everything a government can provide (I've even seen churches that offer shuttle bus services); the Catholic Church has enough guardsmen to form an effective police too if it wanted to and its largely run on donations

churches, unlike governments, do these things without stealing from the people. They have enough confidence in their legitimacy and in their mission to function on donations, and their followers respect them for it

Emphaisis on the word smaller. Churches are a REALLY bad example, as unlike government, they don't have to cover everyone, merely a relative few within their capabilities. Worse still, the Catholic Church is only able to mantain their police force BECAUSE they're so large. (And even then, their abilities are limited. Do you really think they could defend themselves from an invader?)

You also ignore the simple fact that for a government to operate as a business, would require it to be both a monopoly and for government to ignore and overlook those who need their help the most. Churches simply lack the ability.

[BK117B2]

That's already been answered. Your additional details haven't changed it.

If someone comes up to you in a parking lot as you're climbing in your car, points the barrel of a pistol in your face, and says "get out or I'm going to shoot you", do you think this means staying in your car is consent to getting shot?

threat of imminent death is usually considered coercive enough that choice does not exist for legal purposes.

Threat of death doesn't allow free choice, but then obviously neither does threat of imprisonment.

That's not really analogous to a corporation being allowed to charge rent for a property it controls.

It isn't supposed to be an analogy for that

It's interesting though that you think a corporation should never be allowed to change prices or terms for existing customers without that customer's free consent to such change. Lacking consent, the corporation must continue to serve the customer under the previous terms forever. Definitely a minority view. Very heavy-handed on the economic control factor.

So that's it? Lacking anything of substance, you decide to create a stupid straw man.... Pretty disappointing that this is the best you have to contribute

You mention that everyone is free to leave. Have you not seen how difficult emigration can be? Thousands of people die every year attempting it. Many more get rounded up and sent back.

when they try to do so illegally, you mean. Immigration is not easy, but neither is moving. If you want out, get out.

You didn't answer the question. Emigrating LEGALLY is up to the receiving country, and is often quite difficult. You are being misleading about how free people are to just up and leave. You're also utterly missing the point. "If you want out" has nothing to do with it. We're not talking about people wanting out. We're talking about you saying they should get out. Person A telling Person B to get out is NOT the same thing as Person B wanting to leave.

[Galloism]

threat of imminent death is usually considered coercive enough that choice does not exist for legal purposes.

Threat of death doesn't allow free choice, but then obviously neither does threat of imprisonment.

A fair point, but the choices aren't "imprisonment or taxes". The choice are "imprisonment, taxes, or get out", very similar to the way that a landlord's choices might be "lawsuit, rent, or get out".

It's also worth noting that for the vast vast majority of cases, we do not imprison people who fail or refuse to pay their taxes. We take civil actions against them - garnishments, levies, liens, etc.

That's not really analogous to a corporation being allowed to charge rent for a property it controls.

It isn't supposed to be an analogy for that

It's interesting though that you think a corporation should never be allowed to change prices or terms for existing customers without that customer's free consent to such change. Lacking consent, the corporation must continue to serve the customer under the previous terms forever. Definitely a minority view. Very heavy-handed on the economic control factor.

So that's it? Lacking anything of substance, you decide to create a stupid straw man.... Pretty disappointing that this is the best you have to contribute

Let's remember what you said:

Then let me rephrase. SHOULD the corporation be able to extract rent if you refuse to leave the property the corporation controls?

It should be able to do whatever you agreed for it to do.

Since you did not agree the corporation could charge you rent for living on the corporation's property, voted against it even, and apparently being told you must leave if you don't pay is somehow unacceptable per your previous statements, you are stating that the corporation may not do what it wants with the property it owns. Unless you think the corporation SHOULD be able to change policy and begin charging you rent on a property it owns even against your wishes, with your only alternative being moving out, when such is done via a majority vote of the corporate shareholders.

Tick tock.

when they try to do so illegally, you mean. Immigration is not easy, but neither is moving. If you want out, get out.

You didn't answer the question. Emigrating LEGALLY is up to the receiving country, and is often quite difficult. You are being misleading about how free people are to just up and leave. You're also utterly missing the point. "If you want out" has nothing to do with it. We're not talking about people wanting out. We're talking about you saying they should get out. Person A telling Person B to get out is NOT the same thing as Person B wanting to leave.

No, we're telling you that if you live in this nation collectively owned by 300+ million citizens, you need to abide by the nation's laws in the land that it owns and controls by right of sovereignty, given such laws are passed by will of the voters who collectively own the nation. If you do not like our laws, you are free to leave.

We're not telling you TO leave - just giving you a choice. Live by our laws, or you're free to leave. Hell, we'll even give you a voice in changing the laws, but we won't let you live on our property rent-free anymore, not after 1913.

[BK117B2]

Threat of death doesn't allow free choice, but then obviously neither does threat of imprisonment.

A fair point, but the choices aren't "imprisonment or taxes". The choice are "imprisonment, taxes, or get out", very similar to the way that a landlord's choices might be "lawsuit, rent, or get out".

It's also worth noting that for the vast vast majority of cases, we do not imprison people who fail or refuse to pay their taxes. We take civil actions against them - garnishments, levies, liens, etc.

At no point did I say that those were the only two choices, so why do you bring it up? Getting out of the car is vastly easier than getting out of the country, and it is a choice in my scenario. I did notice that you still haven't really answered that question anyway.....why don't you go ahead and give it a try?

Since you did not agree the corporation could charge you rent for living on the corporation's property, voted against it even, and apparently being told you must leave if you don't pay is somehow unacceptable per your previous statements, you are stating that the corporation may not do what it wants with the property it owns.

That is blatantly dishonest. You are still ignoring my actual words in favor of your straw man.

No, we're telling you that if you live in this nation collectively owned by 300+ million citizens, you need to abide by the nation's laws in the land that it owns and controls by right of sovereignty, given such laws are passed by will of the voters who collectively own the nation. If you do not like our laws, you are free to leave.

We're not telling you TO leave - just giving you a choice. Live by our laws, or you're free to leave. Hell, we'll even give you a voice in changing the laws, but we won't let you live on our property rent-free anymore, not after 1913.

You are being intentionally misleading by calling other people's property yours.



The fact is that not leaving one's own home is NOT consent to being taxed. Consent to being taxed is consent to being taxed.


Why don't you try answering my questions finally, and try some more honesty than you've been exhibiting.

[Galloism]

A fair point, but the choices aren't "imprisonment or taxes". The choice are "imprisonment, taxes, or get out", very similar to the way that a landlord's choices might be "lawsuit, rent, or get out".

It's also worth noting that for the vast vast majority of cases, we do not imprison people who fail or refuse to pay their taxes. We take civil actions against them - garnishments, levies, liens, etc.

At no point did I say that those were the only two choices, so why do you bring it up? Getting out of the car is vastly easier than getting out of the country, and it is a choice in my scenario. I did notice that you still haven't really answered that question anyway.....why don't you go ahead and give it a try?

except we recognize that "Do X action or die" is not a valid choice because of extreme illegal coercion. You are disingenuously correlated "sorry, we only have chocolate and glazed donuts today" with "buy a chocolate donut or I put six bullets in you motherfucker".

Clearly, you do not understand illegal coercion. A more appropriate example would be "either I shoot you, you comply with the terms of being on my property by extricating yourself from the vehicle, or leave my property freely and never come back". That's a valid choice, because you now have a noncoercive third option: leaving.

Since you did not agree the corporation could charge you rent for living on the corporation's property, voted against it even, and apparently being told you must leave if you don't pay is somehow unacceptable per your previous statements, you are stating that the corporation may not do what it wants with the property it owns.

That is blatantly dishonest. You are still ignoring my actual words in favor of your straw man.

then may the corporation suddenly begin requiring rent on properties it owns against the tenants will, or require them to leave?

No equivocation. No dodging. No weasel words. YES or NO?

No, we're telling you that if you live in this nation collectively owned by 300+ million citizens, you need to abide by the nation's laws in the land that it owns and controls by right of sovereignty, given such laws are passed by will of the voters who collectively own the nation. If you do not like our laws, you are free to leave.

We're not telling you TO leave - just giving you a choice. Live by our laws, or you're free to leave. Hell, we'll even give you a voice in changing the laws, but we won't let you live on our property rent-free anymore, not after 1913.

You are being intentionally misleading by calling other people's property yours.



The fact is that not leaving one's own home is NOT consent to being taxed. Consent to being taxed is consent to being taxed.


Why don't you try answering my questions finally, and try some more honesty than you've been exhibiting.

The government owns all the land within its territory by right of sovereignty, earned either by right of rebellion, right of conquest, or, for the majority of the United states, flat out cash purchase (both the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Folly were cash transactions).

You're effectively just renting it.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So, in the situation proposed, should the corporation have the right to extract rent if you fail to leave the property?

That's already been answered. Your additional details haven't changed it.


If someone comes up to you in a parking lot as you're climbing in your car, points the barrel of a pistol in your face, and says "get out or I'm going to shoot you", do you think this means staying in your car is consent to getting shot?

You mention that everyone is free to leave. Have you not seen how difficult emigration can be? Thousands of people die every year attempting it. Many more get rounded up and sent back.

Luckily, there is such thing as easy, legal emigration. This involves aeroplanes and trains, not rubber dingies and death marches across continents. There is a difference between being a refugee and being an immigrant/emigrant, of course.

As for the example of the car; you can't consent to an illegal situation. Shooting someone is illegal. So, giving consent to an agreement wherein you get shot is not legally possible. However, taxes are perfectly legal. So, you can consent perfectly well to taxes. Not that you need to, of course. There is no basis in legal sciences that says you must agree to everything you are put through. Far from it. Within bounds, a government can pretty much force you to do anything, for the greater good. The idea that a government somehow violates legal principles by forcing you to do anything is something that is pretty prevalent, and equally as wrong.

[BK117B2]

That's already been answered. Your additional details haven't changed it.


If someone comes up to you in a parking lot as you're climbing in your car, points the barrel of a pistol in your face, and says "get out or I'm going to shoot you", do you think this means staying in your car is consent to getting shot?

You mention that everyone is free to leave. Have you not seen how difficult emigration can be? Thousands of people die every year attempting it. Many more get rounded up and sent back.

Luckily, there is such thing as easy, legal emigration. This involves aeroplanes and trains, not rubber dingies and death marches across continents. There is a difference between being a refugee and being an immigrant/emigrant, of course.

As for the example of the car; you can't consent to an illegal situation. Shooting someone is illegal. So, giving consent to an agreement wherein you get shot is not legally possible. However, taxes are perfectly legal. So, you can consent perfectly well to taxes. Not that you need to, of course. There is no basis in legal sciences that says you must agree to everything you are put through. Far from it. Within bounds, a government can pretty much force you to do anything, for the greater good. The idea that a government somehow violates legal principles by forcing you to do anything is something that is pretty prevalent, and equally as wrong.

Easy, legal immigration? It sounds like you don't have much experience with the subject. I would guess that thousands of dollars, years of waiting, vague regulations, lost paperwork, etc aren't most people's idea of 'easy'

You are mistaken about the concept of consent. You seem to be confusing it with some sort of legal authority. Legal and consenting are two quite different things

[Occupied Deutschland]

Taxes are not theft, they are the greatest invention man has ever made.

Ranking just above the third and second spots, 'the bureaucracy' and 'the Dewey decimal system'.
The wheel? Fire? Fucking CHUMPS.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Luckily, there is such thing as easy, legal emigration. This involves aeroplanes and trains, not rubber dingies and death marches across continents. There is a difference between being a refugee and being an immigrant/emigrant, of course.

As for the example of the car; you can't consent to an illegal situation. Shooting someone is illegal. So, giving consent to an agreement wherein you get shot is not legally possible. However, taxes are perfectly legal. So, you can consent perfectly well to taxes. Not that you need to, of course. There is no basis in legal sciences that says you must agree to everything you are put through. Far from it. Within bounds, a government can pretty much force you to do anything, for the greater good. The idea that a government somehow violates legal principles by forcing you to do anything is something that is pretty prevalent, and equally as wrong.

Easy, legal immigration? It sounds like you don't have much experience with the subject. I would guess that thousands of dollars, years of waiting, vague regulations, lost paperwork, etc aren't most people's idea of 'easy'

You are mistaken about the concept of consent. You seem to be confusing it with some sort of legal authority. Legal and consenting are two quite different things

I'm confused about no such thing. Consent is a groundwork for civil law, and while we're talking about taxes, I'm going to use the legal definition of consent. I'm most comfortable with that one, and if we don't use that definition, we only have a broad, undefined idea of what consent actually entails. If you don't agree with that legal definition, for instance, you'll have to agree that remaining seated in your car would indeed constitute consent. You were given a choice, and you chose one option. That's consent right there, if we use the vague terms.

I didn't say it was easy in the absolute term, but what you were describing was jumping on a raft and peddling over the Med, something that does not constitute immigration.

[BK117B2]

At no point did I say that those were the only two choices, so why do you bring it up? Getting out of the car is vastly easier than getting out of the country, and it is a choice in my scenario. I did notice that you still haven't really answered that question anyway.....why don't you go ahead and give it a try?

except we recognize that "Do X action or die" is not a valid choice because of extreme illegal coercion. You are disingenuously correlated "sorry, we only have chocolate and glazed donuts today" with "buy a chocolate donut or I put six bullets in you motherfucker".

Clearly, you do not understand illegal coercion. A more appropriate example would be "either I shoot you, you comply with the terms of being on my property by extricating yourself from the vehicle, or leave my property freely and never come back". That's a valid choice, because you now have a noncoercive third option: leaving.

Clearly you fail to grasp the concept of illegal coercion. Otherwise, you would not think that talking about something else magically indicates a lack of understanding about it.

Your analogy falls flat since in the topic at hand, no non-coercive option is given. I notice that you still avoid the question.

That is blatantly dishonest. You are still ignoring my actual words in favor of your straw man.

then may the corporation suddenly begin requiring rent on properties it owns against the tenants will, or require them to leave?

No equivocation. No dodging. No weasel words. YES or NO?

So you still refuse to answer me, but you want me to repeat myself.

You are being intentionally misleading by calling other people's property yours.



The fact is that not leaving one's own home is NOT consent to being taxed. Consent to being taxed is consent to being taxed.


Why don't you try answering my questions finally, and try some more honesty than you've been exhibiting.

The government owns all the land within its territory by right of sovereignty, earned either by right of rebellion, right of conquest, or, for the majority of the United states, flat out cash purchase (both the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Folly were cash transactions).

You're effectively just renting it.

So you don't understand the concept of rights. You seriously think there is a "right of conquest"?!?

Extorting payment from someone for remaining on their property is not the same thing as rent.

[BK117B2]

Easy, legal immigration? It sounds like you don't have much experience with the subject. I would guess that thousands of dollars, years of waiting, vague regulations, lost paperwork, etc aren't most people's idea of 'easy'

You are mistaken about the concept of consent. You seem to be confusing it with some sort of legal authority. Legal and consenting are two quite different things

I'm confused about no such thing. Consent is a groundwork for civil law, and while we're talking about taxes, I'm going to use the legal definition of consent. I'm most comfortable with that one, and if we don't use that definition, we only have a broad, undefined idea of what consent actually entails. If you don't agree with that legal definition, for instance, you'll have to agree that remaining seated in your car would indeed constitute consent. You were given a choice, and you chose one option. That's consent right there, if we use the vague terms.

I didn't say it was easy in the absolute term, but what you were describing was jumping on a raft and peddling over the Med, something that does not constitute immigration.

So you don't want to discuss the issue of consent, you actually want to ignore it in favor of discussing law. That's fine, it just doesn't fit as a response to a post about consent and not about law.

You are undeniably mistaken about crossing the Med in a raft to a new country being emigration/immigration. It is not LEGAL, but it is still immigration to the new country. Legal immigration is NOT UP TO YOU. It is up to the country which you are attempting to enter. There are millions and millions of illegal immigrants around the world since the countries would not allow them to immigrate legally

[Galloism]

except we recognize that "Do X action or die" is not a valid choice because of extreme illegal coercion. You are disingenuously correlated "sorry, we only have chocolate and glazed donuts today" with "buy a chocolate donut or I put six bullets in you motherfucker".

Clearly, you do not understand illegal coercion. A more appropriate example would be "either I shoot you, you comply with the terms of being on my property by extricating yourself from the vehicle, or leave my property freely and never come back". That's a valid choice, because you now have a noncoercive third option: leaving.

Clearly you fail to grasp the concept of illegal coercion. Otherwise, you would not think that talking about something else magically indicates a lack of understanding about it.

Your analogy falls flat since in the topic at hand, no non-coercive option is given. I notice that you still avoid the question.

"Leave my property freely and never come back" is a non-coercive option. It's also one available in the context of taxation. Are you or are you not allowed to leave the country and give up your citizenship to avoid taxation in that country?

then may the corporation suddenly begin requiring rent on properties it owns against the tenants will, or require them to leave?

No equivocation. No dodging. No weasel words. YES or NO?

So you still refuse to answer me, but you want me to repeat myself.

Given you've said that you should only be required to do 'whatever you've agreed to do', and you did not agree to the corporation suddenly charging rent for property it owns, then I'm going to take that as a 'no'. Given you refuse to answer the question directly, I can only infer your meaning from your statements.

If the corporation cannot charge you rent because you didn't agree to it, and cannot evict you because that's coercion, that's essentially saying corporations are stuck to whatever business arrangement they once had at any point for the duration of their existence and that of the other person.

That's very economically restrictive. Almost impossible, one might say.

The government owns all the land within its territory by right of sovereignty, earned either by right of rebellion, right of conquest, or, for the majority of the United states, flat out cash purchase (both the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Folly were cash transactions).

You're effectively just renting it.

So you don't understand the concept of rights. You seriously think there is a "right of conquest"?!?

Extorting payment from someone for remaining on their property is not the same thing as rent.

I must point out, with no "right of conquest", the United States still belongs to the American Indians, and no property you own can possibly be yours as no previous sale was ever valid.

Except, nominally, it's not really 'your' property in any meaningful sense. form follows function, or, more specifically, the truth of the transaction follows its actual nature.

The nature of property in the United States is that you are allowed to make use of the property as long as you follow the rules for that property ownership. This usually means you have to pay a monthly or annual fee to the state, much as you would to a landlord, and also generally means that there are certain minimum standards of maintenance and stewardship of the state's land, much as there is for renters to maintain their home. Your grass must be cut, and you can't park dilapidated vehicles, and certain other requirements. With historical land, this can be immensely restrictive, even not allowing you to change the facade of the building. If you fail to meet these requirements, you can be evicted, much as a landlord can, and your 'lease' be sold to someone else.

Residing within the United States also comes with certain requirements. You usually have to pay a fee to the United States, based on income, for the privilege of living here. This is very similar to many businesses which require you to pay a fee to enter the ice hockey rink, or the bar. You have to pay them just to be inside property they nominally 'own'. Some businesses even use sliding scale entrance fees (where practical). If you do not like it, you are free to leave or not enter the premises.