In regards to your following response to @ekklesiagora: "Lets consider we have 1% rich and 99% poor. Now the poor establish a system of insuring each other against certain risks and the rich opt out. If the poor have the ability to organise that gives them tremendous power over the 1% which depend on the 99% as a market and as workers. In that way they can effectively "tax" them in a fully voluntarist way. In the past these technologies were not available yet making large scale trustless organisation impossible. But now we can do it."

I'm not sure if allowing anyone/any arbitrary group to control the survival necessities on earth and having them say that "If you work for me for free, I'll give you some moldy bread and a tiny cave to survive with", could be considered a fully voluntary arrangement. That's what I believe will happen without any form of control which is why many libertarians ended up becoming geolibertarians.

That would be a new form of feudal government w/ voluntary slave labors that have no better choice but to be exploited, in an extremely inequal exchange of labor vs rewards just so they could barely survive.

I mean, anyone is free to leave the countries they live in as of now. The land is owned by the state, as much as it could be owned by a group of any individuals. Therefore, if land ownership is the only thing that matters in how its owner treats people that is there, we could even claim taxation is just as long as they're enshrined in the laws of the land. Marie Byrd Land and Bir Tawil Triangle are both unclaimed territories that anyone can go to if they want. That doesn't mean people could easily leave and live in those locations, and there are only so many people that can live in those places.

I think a lot of the disagreement stems from the consequentialist right Libertarians beliefs that it is impossible for a natural monopoly to arise in a way that horizontal restraint becomes ineffective. As far as deontological libertarians, they are libertarians that care more about their ideology than the terrible consequence of their beliefs, even if mankind will go extinct because of it. So, words about consequences might be meaningless with them.

My position personally aligns better with the geolibertarians even if not perfectly so. I think their argument is much less flawed and more thorough, while their proposal is just better in general consequences for every individual. Here are a few interesting quotes from "Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?":

"A favorite excuse of royal libertarians is that the land has been divided up for so long that tracing the rightful owners would be pointless. But there can be no rightful owners if we all have an inalienable right of access to the earth. It is not some ancient injustice we seek to rectify, but an ongoing injustice. The piece of paper granting title might be ancient, but the tribute levied on the landless goes on and on."
"One might as well have accepted monarchy under the excuse that whatever conquest led to monarchy occurred centuries ago, and that tracing the rightful monarchs would be pointless. Indeed, landed aristocracy is the last remnant of monarchy." ~ Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy the State
"We are libertarians who make the classical liberal distinction between land, labor and capital. We believe in the private possession of land without interference from the state, but in the community collection of land rent to prevent monopolization of land."
"A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment.... He who plants a field keeps possession of it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of the nation." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"...if the fruits rotted, or the venison putrified, before he could spend it, he offended against the common law of nature, and was liable to be punished; he invaded his neighbour's share, for he had no right, farther than his use called for any of them, and they might serve to afford him conveniences of life." ~ John Locke
"The same measures governed the possession of land too: whatsoever he tilled and reaped, laid up and made use of, before it spoiled, that was his peculiar right; whatsoever he enclosed, and could feed, and make use of, the cattle and product was also his. But if either the grass of his enclosure rotted on the ground, or the fruit of his planting perished without gathering, and laying up, this part of the earth, notwithstanding his enclosure, was still to be looked on as waste, and might be the possession of any other." ~ John Locke
"AFTER conquest and confiscation have been effected, and the State set up, its first concern is with the land.... In its capacity as ultimate landlord, the State distributes the land among its beneficiaries on its own terms." ~ --Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy the State