That’s a false dichotomy. The problem is that property in principle arises from the same sort of interactions as taxes. To quote Robert Reich:
In reality, the ‘free market’ is a bunch of rules about 1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); 2) on what terms (equal access to the Internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections?); 3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?); 4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); 5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on. These rules don’t exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don’t ‘intrude’ on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren’t ‘free’ of rules; the rules define them.
Personally, I can’t imagine taking libertarians seriously unless they:
a) recognize that property is defined and secured by social contracts, which right now normally means governments,
b) notice that the countries on earth that are currently the best to live in - in terms of health, happiness, freedom of opportunity, and even risk of actually suffering violence - are the ones that rely on social programs and regulations.
Because without an answer to those, it’s only poor and unrealistic philosophy.
