I do not believe the state is entitled to do anything to us that we would not be justified in doing to each other in the state's absence. So, if there is no state I am still entitled to defend myself against attack, and I am still entitled to keep the food I grew and stop you from taking it from me, and I am still entitled to others keeping up their ends of bargains we've voluntarily entered into, and so on. And thus, in principle anyway, I am entitled to delegate such matters to others. Indeed, I do not actually have to delegate them: others, if they so wish, can decide to protect my rights. If, for instance, I am being attacked, then you are entitled to protect me from that attack. Perhaps there are exceptions, but for the most part anyone can, if they so wish, decide to protect another person's rights from being violated.

The point is that you can't get out what you haven't put in. And so the state can't magically acquire entitlements to do things to us that we would not have had in its absence. So one way to think about whether something the state is doing is just or not, is to imagine an individual doing the same thing to you and then considering whether that individual would be justified in doing it. If, for example, I decide that you are not eating healthily enough and so decide to fine you for any unhealthy food you purchase so as to try and encourage you to eat more healthily - and threaten you with violence if you do not pay those fines - that would be, well, outrageous. I mean, who do I think I am? What business of mine is it what you eat? And I am absolutely not entitled to do those things. And it makes no difference how powerful I am - I mean, if I am a huge all-seeing giant will that magically mean that I am now entitled to menace you into leading the lifestyle I want you to lead? No, clearly not. And the same applies if that giant is made of a group of people - that is, if instead of a mind it has a committee room.

So far so good - but this means that though the state (indeed, anyone) is entitled to protect our rights, it is not entitled to extract payment from us for doing so. Not unless we have entered into an agreement for it to do so, anyway. I can decide to protect your rights from the infringing activity of others. But I can't then demand that you pay me for doing so. (Perhaps i ought to pay you - after all, it was nice of you to undertake to protect my rights for me - but still, you're not entitled to extract the payment from me with menaces, are you?).

But what about those who have violated our rights? Well, here matters are very different. If someone has violated your rights, then that person loses some of the protection that rights give, especially if they have done so voluntarily. Even if I smash your vase accidentally, I owe you restitution that can, if necessary, be extracted by force if it is not voluntarily given; and so it is even clearer then, that if one voluntarily violates another's rights, then one owes restitution and that restitution can be extracted by force if necessary.

Right: well, I didn't choose to live a life here. That is something others - my parents - have made me do. They knew full well what life here was like - that one needs to work to survive and that living here carries with it all kinds of risks of harm, including the risk that others will violate one's rights.

Seems to me quite clear, then: our parents have violated our rights and have voluntarily exposed us to the risks of living. As such our parents owe us a living and owe us protection for our rights. That is, our parents owe us the state institutions: they owe it to us to provide us with an education; owe it to us to provide us with a police force and justice system designed to protect our rights; and owe it to us to provide us with a welfare system that guarantees us a decent standard of living without us having to work or beg for it. And we are entitled to extract payment for these things from them with force if necessary; that is, it is justified to tax parents to pay for the state institutions.

So that's my solution to the problem of justifying taxing people - which is, let's be clear, to extract money with menaces - to pay for the state. It is clearly unjustified in the main, but it is entirely justified if the money in question is being forcibly extracted from parents (and other rights violators, of course). It's good, isn't it?