Except it doesn't. The market finds a way to screw the consumer, it has been like that since the dawn of recorded history ("Caveat Emptor!") and we no longer stand for it, sorry.
I'm not trying to say that all government and all regulation is necessarily good either. Over-regulation is a problem in a lot of places and there absolutely should be debate on what rules are sensible, which rules are unjust and intolerable, or make life worse.
I just don't accept that government, laws, taxes etc as morally wrong from the outset, or that it doesn't matter what the outcome would be without them because OMG violence!
You not accepting it doesn't mean it's not true. When you say "we should regulate taxi industry because we want higher standards of safety" you have to remember that those standards are by no means universal. Every person has his own set of standards. If 60% of people accept your standards and 40% do not, that means that those 40% would be forced to follow them. If they don't - meaning if they decide to start a business that doesn't comply with those standards to serve customers who don't agree with these same standards - they will pay fines or go to jail. It's a fact, not a perspective.
Thus you saying you don't accept that government and taxes are immoral is actually the same as saying you don't accept to call it theft and force when governments do something to the rest of the people who disagree with you.
You believe in violence and force just as much as anyone else, becauser you believe in property rights and the use of force to protect them.
If 40% of people don't accept your interpretation of land ownership rights then you would have no problem forcing them to follow your interprewtation of those, so stop getting all high and mighty as if you have an unassailably correct and violence free philosphy. You don't.
