You came late to the thread, so it's not surprising you didn't read #93, in which I anticipated this argument. You are essentially walking up to a man who is in his own yard minding his own business, and trying to force him to eat. He refuses. You then try and force him to pay anyway. He refuses either to eat or to pay. So you attempt to force him from his property, claiming that his land is now inside your restaurant.
TANSTAAFL
Heinlein is of course rolling in his grave to see the phrase used as a defense of forcible expropriation. But it ain't logical. You're trying to force people to pay for things they never ordered.
Enjoying the benefits created our society and its laws while demanding that he continue recieving them for free.
TANSTAAFL
He wasn't an anarchist. He was a Democrat.