The root cause of the state, crime and taxation is so-called “private” stuff. The thing with the term “private” is that it’s either superfluous or insidious.
Anarchism does not reject notions of property, ownership, individualism, or interests per se. Any issues solely relate to what is implied by the “private” qualifier. If the term “private” means anything, then what precisely is it referring to, and why is this so hard to pin down?
1. It is used to assert that ANYTHING can be treated as a possession, including land and other natural resources. In the absence of this concept only stuff that a person has the potential to move around are instinctively perceived as their possessions.
2. It is used to assert that absentee ownership is possible. This implies that a person can acquire and maintain ownership of a natural resource without ever visiting it.
3. It is used to assert that the concept of heritability will also apply to aspects 1. & 2. Heritability is not a bad thing in and of itself, but when applied in this manner it enables the development of dynasties.
4. The above aspects are only rendered viable by way of third party enforcement, so clearly that’s an essential part of this concept.
5. When combined, all of the above give rise to a means of domination, and the creation of a ruling propertarian class. This is bad for social cohesion since it disenfranchises those born into the subjugated class, inexorably leading to antisocial behaviour, the stuff we refer to as “crime”.
6. Force is then promoted as a solution to the crime problem, and before you know it the ruling class has devised a bunch of rules and appointed people to enforce those. The result is a state.
7. Enforcing the law to so many disenfranchised people is a very expensive undertaking. The most cost effective solution is to buy them off with some concessions, such as universal services.
8. Universal services need to be paid for, and since they are ‘universal’, the simplest solution is just to charge everyone. Welcome to taxation.
The way to avoid this is to ditch the whole “private” angle (along with all that implies), and to dispense with the complexities of property in favour of simple respect for whatever people are occupying, possessing, and using.