There should be a body that arbitrates property right disputes. There should be a body that protects the property rights of others and captures offenders of those property rights. Those services are expensive. Taxes should be levied to provide those services.

I think that is the basic logic. Feel free to voice your point of contention and we can discuss it more fully.

I did call it involuntary confiscation. I still haven't actually called it theft. I merely pointed out that you object to this use of the word.

If I destroy your property, I am in effect robbing you of that property. I fail to see how compensating you for that loss is the same as you thieving from me, in any definition described here. By being the aggressor here, I was "asking for it" if you will. That's hardly the same as minding my own business & receiving a tax bill. Do you honestly not see where these are different? What damages did I cause the state to require I compensate them?

Or to put the question plainer: what is the basis of their claim to my property?

In the year 1900, the average age of the population was 22.9. The % of population under 15 was still 34.5%. In year 1900, 12% of the population was under the age of 5.

In year 2000, % under 15 was only 21%. Draw your own conclusions.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics
_of_the_United_States)

Population growth rate per year from 1790 – 1900 is 2.47% from 1900 to 2000 is 1.3%.

So I think it is obvious that there is a simple reason per capita growth and overall growth are different, one has a denominator the other doesn't.

Which matters? You tell me. Who has a higher standard of living, China or the U.K., India or Ireland?

If number of people was the single most significant factor in determining the GDP of the economy, China & India will have the largest economies in the world"

You are totally misrepresenting what I said. Look a couple of posts up.

"In such an environment, overall growth is almost entirely driven by the nebulous "technology growth," which is broadly defined by how productive scarce inputs."

You read this right? Did you just forget already? I never said anything close to "number of people was the single most significant factor in determining the GDP"

But it is a mathematical fact that adding people adds to GDP (unless somehow you think a person creates zero or negative productivity, that is you wouldn't employ them even if they were willing to work for a penny). You cannot address the difference in GDP growth and GDP per capita growth without talking about immigration. Immigration in the 19th century and before dwarfed immigration in the 20th century.

"19th century population of the U.S set the stage for immense 20th potential, yet, meddlesome government has significantly curtailed that potential with their intereference in the economy."

This is a claim for which you have provided no evidence. Prove it. How much did meddlesome government curtail growth? Do you have any argument that leads to this claim?