Benito Mussolini: a dictator for all seasons?

[Spoonist]

1- But from where does a government get this legitimacy, this right to tax? I would like clarification on your views on the matter.

If you claim it gets it from the people(my best guess as to your answer), then my immediate followup is- why do they have the right? In many cases (admittedly not all- sometimes it's a bit murkier), a person has worked hard to secure their property. Why should others have a right to take any of it?

It doesn't matter to the argument whether or not taxation is stealing. Thus it is a strawman you create by persuing the legitimacy angle.
Stealing and Taxation is two completely different concepts. In language, by definition and in practice. They are not synonyms to anyone but the deluded.
Now onto your reasoning, this is also flawed. The definition of "private property" requires laws to define and protect it. Without laws you would only have "might makes right" and ordinary property in the hands of the mighty. So you cannot argue about the rights for "private property" without the inclusion of laws and thus a legislative body. Hence with the inclusion of "private property" you have to have a legislative body regardless of how it came to be or whether or not it had some moral legitimacy.
Then finally most nations would not derive its legitimacy from the people, that is absurd. They derive it from tradition with a sprinkling of circular logic. Check out the concept of Rational–legal authority for the rest.
There is some excellent online Harvard lectures upon the legitimacy of nation states, get back to us when you have grasped the basics.

2- Give me some time to get my research together, and I'll get back to you on this one.

Sure, but it didn't help last time around.

3- I'm rather rusty on Christianity. Oops.

I wouldn't stop there, but I'm willing to forgive.

4- Not really- in some cases the effect of bad spelling on an argument's clarity is practically insignificant.

Less clear, is less clear. Why do you even try to defend this?

5- Say an individual has a net worth (in the sense of the total value of all their property if they sell it off) of $1,000,000 (pretty plausible factoring for their house). If they give it all to charities targeting at the worst parts of the Third World and subsist on welfare, it is very hard to see how the result could be a rate worse than $10,000 per life saved(highly conservative estimate). This means that they don't even have to die, and save 100 people.

Your example doesn't adress the point and doesn't contribute to the discussion. Again, humans are pack animals, which part of that didn't you understand? Then the average westerner is at a net negative due to loans directly or indirectly. So your example ignores practical reality. It also completely misses that by giving that money to society it will accomplish more accumulatively than saving X nr of people by a charitable one time thing.

To give money to charity in the West is a bit more wasteful, true.

Hence the wealth distribution thingie in my post.

6- Intuition is not very trustworthy, especially when there is an easy bias involved towards being self-serving. Given this, trusting intuitions on a topic like this is foolish.

Couldn't agree more, but I'm guessing you have no clue why it doesn't help your cause to point that out. Now go back and read what you replied to, then try to give a reasoning why you think that my argument had anything to do with intuition.

7- From my personal experience I'd have to differ with you on most people's ideas of freedom. Freedom effectively means that one's choices are not constrained by others- hence the point I've been making this whole thread.

Hence my use of fluid etc. Also why I referenced "do what thou wilt". Also why generic capitalism disqualifies itself by its practical implementation, for Capitalism to exist you need to constrain choices, ie market and trade regulations.

For a system to be purely free, it has to be purely capitalist.

Does not compute.
Capitalism requires laws, laws that restrict choices/options, otherwise there will be no competetive market, those laws require a legal system, such contractual legal system will be on a quid pro quo basis, like citizenship.

In order to be purely capitalist, there must be no government intervention in the economy, even taxation. I thought it was pretty obviously implicit in what I've said already that such is necessary.

You are correct that your position is obvious. But it is also, obviously wrong. Capitalism doesn't have a "pure" state, it cannot by its nature have such a thing. This was why I referenced the over one hundred different definitions of capitalism which you ignored. For capitalism to be able to exist there must be a rule of contractual law somewhere or its competiveness will cease. Contractual laws are restriction of the freedom of the legal entities, how can you argue against that? Right now in reality we don't have many instances of contractual laws that is not derived from a governement or international agreements between governements. Can you name one?
However I fully agree that a legislative body can exist without taxation. It cannot however exist without some sort of income. In practical reality that is where taxation comes in for most governements.

So-called capitalism plus taxation is not capitalism per se, but what I think would best be described either as socialism or capitalism-socialism (capitalism-socialism, broadly defined, is any system which has both a private economy and government intervention. It is more capitalist or socialist depending on the extent to which each controls the economy).

Agree on all of this. Capitalism requires a legal system, a legal system reuires funding, but theoretical Capitalism doesn't by necessity include a system of taxation. However in practical reality can you name any single capitalistic system that does not include some sort of taxation or a synonym thereof? Or will you retort to some sort of no true scotsman regarding capitalism in practical reality?

If you look an anarchic system which isn't capitalist, you inevitably find it must restrict freedom by definition- anarcho-tribalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism etc all involve 'redistribution' (a word which I strongly suspect started either as a euphemism, political propaganda, or both), depriving people by force of the fruits of their labor.

You ignored that they have their own definition of freedom included. Something which capitalism doesn't. You also seems to miss that I have already said anarchism isn't freedom to most people.

To say "I am free, despite people putting this restriction upon me" is self-evidently absurd. If anybody actually asserts that, I answer back- Are you retarded?

I wouldn't go there, and that is not a nice thing to say to yourself.
Again I refer you to the Harvard lectures, I think you can even find them on youtube.
Now there are lots of freedoms that require that we put restrictions on people. They are usually refered to as rights.
For instance, a right to vote, is considered to be a freedom to many. Hence historical points like the declaration of independence and whatnot. But a right to vote will include a lot of restrictions, like one vote per person, or, when and how do you vote, what the organization you vote for will be allocated due to your vote etc.
This is why the word freedom usually comes with a loaded baggage depending on the culture of the one using it.
To take an analogy, in europe and the US lots of people associate freedom with driving. Another thing that people would experience as less free without laws than it is with laws. Same as free enterprise.
Also check out the Ted talks on choice, they are really interesting.