Recognition and enforcement of private property on a planet of finite land without due compensation for the loss of what was once commonly owned is a fundamental violation of the NAP. You can't say that choking someone is violence but sucking up all the air into a giant vacuum to sell to people in exchange for work isn't.

There is no true freedom without unconditional basic income, so I hope you include a chapter on it. Or else you fully support forcing the propertyless to work for those with property in exchange for their continued existence.

I agree with your statement that "Freedom is what you have when no one is forcing their will on you." But without basic income, that will never be accomplished for everyone.

I think the argument put forth here by Pettit is far stronger:

The view that unreasoned control takes away liberty and that it may assume a wholly invigilatory character is just the view, in more traditional terms, that liberty requires nondomination. I will escape domination only to the extent that I occupy a protected position and am empowered against such control on the part of others. My freedom will consist in that protected and empowered status. Let liberty be restricted to the possession of the basic liberties: that is, let those liberties define the domain of freedom and let freedom require the mere possession of those liberties (Pettit, 2008). We can still argue for a right to a basic income, so long as the possession of those liberties is taken to require not just the absence of interference by others in the relevant areas of choice but also the absence of unreasoned control – the absence of domination (Pettit, 1997; Skinner, 1998; Viroli, 2002; Pettit, 2007c

The argument is straightforward. Others will control me, if only in the merely invigilatory fashion, only to the extent that the division of powers between us means that they can interfere with me at will – that is, without prevention – and at tolerable cost, i.e. with a degree of impunity. If I am not assured a basic income, there will be many areas where the wealthier could interfere with me at tolerable cost, without their being confronted by legal prevention of that interference. Suppose there are just a few employers and many available employees, and that times are hard. In those conditions I and those who like me will not be able to command a decent wage: a wage that will enable us to function properly in society. And in those conditions it will be equally true that we would be defenseless against our employers’ petty abuse or their power to arbitrarily dismiss us. Other protections, such as those that strong trade unions might provide, are possible against such alien control. But the most effective of all protections, and one that should complement other measures available, would be one’s ability to leave employment and fall back on a basic wage available unconditionally from the state.

That you wish to entirely eliminate the US government and are on a tour about how "all taxation is theft" tells me you're far more concerned about paying no taxes than you are about guaranteeing freedom for all.