> So if Ferrari decides to start delivering cars to you, it's alright for them to forcefully take your money "in exchange" if you don't feel like paying for the cars? You've received the Ferraris, after all, so now you should pay.

Haha not quite. The difference is that there's an implied agreement between the citizen and the government; a "social contract." If you don't want their goods and services then you can choose not to live in that country.

> Do you want me to believe you don't think it matters that people aren't given a choice in the matter?

But they are given a choice: leave. To think that everyone at birth or a reasonable age should be asked up front: "Hey, I know almost every human in history has lived in civilization despite having the ability to leave at any moment, but just in case, do you want to leave human civilization?"

> Being ruled involves paying taxes to your rulers, i.e. not keeping all of your property.

And we're worse off for it? By your logic anyone who pays taxes is a slave. Being a slave is morally undesirable. Therefore we shouldn't pay taxes and as a result we should not have any government services in return, just to make things fair. How do you expect civilization to continue with no rules, no protection and no one to enforce laws? Should everyone just keep a gun on them at all times and hope for the best? You're taking this way to far.

>It's really not that complicated. No matter how you might define "property" for your distraction purposes, in this context it obviously covers any income you receive, which is then taxed.

Wonderful. So that would include companies, products, production lines etc. That's reasonable to infer. Have you ever heard of the Robber Barrons? When there was no government protection (which comes with taxes btw) or regulations, life was miserable for the American public in the early 20th century. In you're libertarian utopia (which the article you conveniently haven't mentioned doesn't work) taxes won't be paid, governments wouldn't protect and this would happen all over again. How many people would actually turn down human civilization just to say a few percentage point on their income? I find it odd how you accuse me of distracting you with trying to define a definition, and with intellectual dishonesty when you're asserting this as a plausible alternative to civilization.

> If that's true, then why would anyone attempt to maximize anyone else's happiness (through subjectively justified means, no less)?

You completely ignored my last point. Allow me to repeat myself:

"By overall point here is that if we try and maximize the happiness of everyone else (in addition to ourselves) then the result creates a synergistic effect where the sum is greater than the parts. To be even more simple: You can focus on your happiness have have 10 "headons" or you can help contribute to society, your family, your day-to-day life and if everyone else does the same than your happiness will be 15 "headons." You might ask yourself, "what if no one else does the same? Then I'm just contributing to their happiness with nothing in return." While that may be true that's just the Tragedy of the Commons at which point you can only hope that your actions influence others to do the same which will ultimately help you in the end."

Let's keep this civil and avoid ad hominem please. I want to have a nice clean discussion here.