Fallacy:
"You support [the state] though. You live in support of it. You certainly give it tacit assent, and indeed I know that you're not the type to defy taxation or fight a police officer[']s order. … You have 4 (3 really) choices[:] rebellion, expatriation, support, or hypocrisy." (Wayne Bereman)
Response:
This is the "if you don't take an assault rifle into a federal building you are not True Anarchist™" argument. —Jesse Gossett
The error of reasoning here (after the Magic Contracts fallacy) is equivalent to that of somebody who states that the raped endorses the rapist because she is involuntarily giving her "services" to him. As such, the list of "choices" amounts to a classic false dilemma. Although the woman has the choice to resist the rapist, she may not possess the strength or ability to do so: and in any case her rights are being violated. Similarly, we would recognize the error of a carjacker saying that his victim consents to the carjacking because the victim chose to drive on a particular road or that a mugging victim chose to be mugged for walking in a particular street (even if the street was near her house and she took it every day).
Government does not possess a valid claim over my life and property; I do.
Thus while hypocrisy may be a choice for some, it is not a necessary one taken by those refusing to leave their own land (see: fallacy Love It Or Leave It); and to the list we therefore add remaining in one's own property where one may be extorted without either supporting or condoning the extortion. The error creating the false dilemma is that the statist doesnt understand the difference between a voluntary action and an involuntary action (or has a psychological need to deny that there is a difference). (DBR, integrating comments from Benjamin Richards and Jesse Gossett)