Voluntary racist white communities in the US denied black people their rights and liberties without either employing or breaking any laws. That is an example of a situation whose existence you have declared to be impossible on theoretical grounds - in the present, or in the past.
No. Of course, I know that in the US slavery was legal. Slavery clearly violates libertarian and liberal principles. So, violating libertarian principles without breaking the law is possible. So, if you make such dubious claims about what I have claimed, please only with explicit quote, and with explicit link to the source.
Think again about what I have claimed, by reading the claims, and thinking about them.
If you make it illegal to shoot somebody, you do not thereby deprive the gun owner of the ownership of their gun.
Nice example that not every imaginable regulation is an effective expropriation. It does not change the fact that what we have talked about - a regulation which allows everybody to use some private property - was an example of a regulation which is an effective expropriation.
No expropriation took place, then or now. You are siding with the bad people in claiming that 2+2=5, and using exactly the same reasoning in defense of your error that they used.
Yes, I'm siding with the bad people. Such is life. If you defend liberal or libertarian principles, you have to side with the bad people if the rights of the bad people are violated. Repeating that I'm wrong does not prove that I'm wrong.
Then, I have not said that there was some formal expropriation. But that deciding who is allowed to use the property is an effective expropriation, because it takes the most important property right - the right to decide who is allowed to use the property - away.
Black people who were subjugated and denied their rights and liberties by the impositions of voluntary white racist communities were not physically equal before the law.
There is no such animal as "being physically equal before the law". Equality before the law is one thing, physical equality is something completely different.
They could not, for example, obtain a trial by a jury of their own race, in fact. White people could, in fact.
Equality before the law means that the race should not matter in the legal procedures used for the choice of the jury. If the jury is taken from the local population, when a whites only jury may be expected in a location populated by whites, similarly a black jury in a location populated by blacks. Once blacks are a minority in the general population, blacks only juries would be an exception. Even if everything would be completely fair and unprejudiced in these procedures.
Black people could not obtain jobs as police officers, or judges, or lawyers, or other enforcers and guardians and servants of the law, in part because they could not fulfill the duties of such employment given the physical situation. They could not enter into many significant kinds of legal contract, or rely on enforcement of the contracts they did engage, due to physical circumstances created by voluntary white racist communities. And so forth.
Why this? If there would be some legal restriction, which distinguishes black from white, it would violate liberal as well as libertarian principles. If this is an informal problem, simply those who decide about who gets the job are racists, not nice, but, sorry, nobody has the right to obtain a certain job. Just to clarify: If you are black in a predominantly racist white environment, you will be in quite unfavorable conditions. And a liberal law, where the law code forbids explicit racism, removes only a few aspects of these unfavorable conditions. It does not create racial equality or so. And it is not even intended to do this, because it is liberalism, not socialism.
Equality before the law is not an abstraction alone - it is a physical situation, as well.
In American liberalism, this is possibly correct. Which makes it essentially different from classical European liberalism.
Nonsensical polemics disposed.
There are libertarians who do include physical fact in their theoretical analyses, and recognize that (for example) your term "involuntary" involves a judgment of fact, not theory. In fact, for example, taxation in at least some parts of the US is arguably voluntary - you choose to live in the community, do this or that, use the local currency and roadways and sewer system, etc, you agree - voluntarily - to pay taxes. If that argument holds, taxation is not automatically slavery - even for libertarians. It depends on the reality involved.
In this case, to name it "taxation" is simply misleading, that's all. If you participate in some community, voluntarily, it is quite typical that you pay some membership contributions or so, I'm not sure what would be the appropriate name. Whatever, even if I'm wrong assuming that taxation means something involuntary, enforced by the state with imprisonment for those who don't pay them, so what, replace "taxation" with "involuntary taxation", big deal.
And which societies would those be exactly?
Almost every non-state society.
Read the text and try to find it out.
Name one society where everyone is equal? There has never been such a society.
The point being? I have not claimed that such societies exist.
Two, your notion of slavery is all screwed up.
Maybe, but nobody cares about your claims, given that you are known to be unable to support your claims.
Stupid polemics disposed.