(Attempted) Inflation control by supply, give or take issues with fractional reserve, can be a fun one and . Personally I would view it as a form of social manipulation towards the end of getting people to continue doing things rather than resting on their laurels, or those of their ancestors, and as everybody else in the world is attempting to improve their lot in life the stagnation of your economy once people can afford to be fat and happy is not necessarily a good thing. Maybe once the world has achieved the resource utopia of some of your previous debates we could revisit the issue. Whether the balance could stand to be tweaked is certainly a matter that could be discussed, and I do find the credit rating system, arguably the representation of the debt system, in the US to be unpleasant (the notion of a credit builder loan aimed at general people and not those maybe trying to restore some credit being something that turns my stomach at times). That said credit ratings are the largely unknown logic product of private companies.
Anyway any private enterprise can mine themselves some bitcoin, or indeed attempt to establish their own such system, and barter is still a thing, though may be subject to taxation at some level depending upon a variety of factors and could see the government call them (all things from the first part of the system) other instruments of wealth. Any other private enterprise would appear to be able to choose to accept such a currency, and assign values to debts accordingly. I will leave part of this hanging though as I will first have to read some of the truck systems code. Equally though law might get troubled if an aggrieved party chooses to invoke law of the land it appears there is even scope within that with the, often favoured, binding arbitration approach and there are even religious takes on the matter if that is the sort of thing that floats your boat (
http://peacemaker.net/arbitration/ ).
Previously you seem to have like to have said things are not an argument when they were clearly not intended to be (you have done it to obvious jokes in the past), as they might have been here. It is a rather weak tactic in debate, though I suppose as a statement on your part it is technically true in some of those instances. What you wrote there is clearly not my yellow spirit level. Language, even formal debate, does provide the option for some flavour and flourish, and I find such things to be both useful and enjoyable.
Still I would return to the free rider issue. With no funds you soon get no public works and no support systems, something I would consider desirable and seldom otherwise adequately provided by private enterprise or smaller communities (though they themselves often being called governing bodies presents an amusing definition quandary for the word choices you favour).
Your exercise is flawed, and not only in a "this, therefore that" with the government being able to define laws sense. To answer the question your answer could be repeated ad infinitum but is bears little relevance to the matter of taxation. I have a sense of the arguments you have and the worldviews of those that make similar ones and this would probably have to start with us discussing the idea of sovereignty of nations (the particular one favoured in Europe and thus the US being that of Westphalian sovereignty, though complicated in this instance by the manifest destiny idea somewhat unique to the US). This could be further complicated by all land on earth these days being claimed and free movement of individuals not being a thing. Suffice it to say though the US, and most countries following a similar model, would claim the right to set laws and thus taxes within its border, and somewhat more controversially on its own citizens when not in those borders. The US nominally sets this taxation to primarily be for the good of the people rather than enrichment of rulers and military/bureaucracy which works for me. I don't know if it is possible to legitimately live tax free (give or take sales tax) in the US right now, and given the general criminalisation of "homelessness" I could see it being harder than many places. If that is your grievance rather than the general notion then we have scope for a discussion.
So there are cunts in the world, this is a known thing and while it stops some fun we tend to try to press on anyway and minimise damage. Violence can be defined, especially when talking law, as excessive force where force can be a justified reaction. I would assert in this case that eminent domain can be, and should be, a justified use of force as a limit to individual rights in face of some measure of group would have to be the case. I sense this may be a sticking point though.
How immediate does the danger need to be? If you are charged with the protection of society that could provide scope from where I sit. For your examples wasn't waco considered a failure in law enforcement, something that unfortunately happens and should be addressed and seriously considered. The Syria stuff falls under war and foreign policy which is something of a different matter. Though in any case I can not imagine a lack of desire to minimise such things, and steps taken to achieve those goals.
Source
