No, you said that *ANY* condition which the property-owner sets is a valid condition.
I have shown you examples of morally reprehensible conditions; to which you say “well then don’t go on that property if they have those conditions.”
I have shown you the example of slavery to which you said (basically) that my own ability to leave the property nullifies that —quite the opposite from the first— but even then you fail to acknowledge that *EVEN IF* I were to agree to such a term and enter the property IT IS STILL ILLEGAL as per the Constitution’s 13th Amendment.
Or do you mean to say that you are the ultimate authority on your own land, even to the point of declaring that the premeditated taking of a human life, no matter the situation, on your part does not qualify as murder? How well will that redefinition of ‘murder’ hold up in court?
Now while I do hold that property-taxes are immoral*, and that there ARE such things as property-rights, I believe even moreso that there are certain HUMAN rights that are inalienable and not repudiatable: one of which is that of defending oneself.
* Property taxes AS IMPLEMENTED are immoral not because the government should have absolutely no taxing authority thereon but because a failure-to-pay is the justification for unpaid seizure sometimes without a trial. I think that could be addressed if there were a Constitutional amendment REQUIRING a jury-trial *PRIOR* to any seizure arising from tax issues.
Look up “Condition” in the dictionary. Then look up “Dictat”. You have them confused.
Conditions cannot be manditory by their very definition. That are to put it bluntly, conditional. Truly look this up, you don’t seem to understand what it means.
If I put conditions on your action, it by definition means that you have options.
Stop arguing like a child. The English language has words that actually have accepted meanings, stick to them.