Why consent to inequality?

The initiation of violence can only be justified if it is done so in response to a past (prior) aggression that was not acted upon and is now relevant (perhaps, relevant) due to the changing circumstances of the time. For example, if we steal bread for our starving child from an oppressive landlord (and we do so because circumstances have recently driven us to act) then we can see this as retaliation. If we are desperate, it is easy to see that we act for prior aggressions.

So then, coercion and theft is justified only in retaliation so that it can be seen as defensive, not as punishment for the oppressor, but because circumstances now dictate that a 'crime' is required. It is then not theft, but reclaiming, perhaps in a different form: Not land but bread. But this must be explicit to be justified. Otherwise it is the initiation of violence.

The nature of the crime being retaliated (against) in these circumstances is one of boundary difficulties, an argument over property rights. So a prior theft does not justify further theft, but prior property oppression might...

No one is hungry today who has not been oppressed.

Coercion is unfair unless to redress a boundary dispute. If we have been oppressive landlords it is natural that we might expect theft in return, since the property inequality cannot be settled legally. Taxes (coercion) will be justified whilst property inequality remains but they are an ineffective measure.

It is reasonable to seek to hinder the aggregation of property; to constrain land ownership by an individual. It is reasonable to constrain individual assets. Perhaps consent should be withheld?