I'm going to preface this by saying that I've already had a considerable amount of whiskey, so some of my logic might be a bit fast & loose. Despite this my main point is that you are being too fast & lose with your logic, so I guess I'm somewhat of a hypocrite....

That being said, I think the main problem of your argument stems from the repeated application of the consistency principle to things that you have not proven to true dichotomies. You are using first order logic on propositions that are far too nuanced and complex to be considered first order.

Near the very beginning you state that having different rules for two groups of people is a violation of the consistency principle.

You can't have different rules for government than you do for the rest of us.

What does the consistency principle have to do with 2 groups of people with different rules imposed upon them? What inherent first-order-logical contradiction do you see here? There is no way to translate your sentence to a single logical statement (using only first order logic). You may posit that 2 rule sets are inconsistent, but that is not the same definition of the word that the consistency principle relies upon (ie not containing a logical statement which contradicts itself).

Later you bring this up again while reasoning on the roles of slaves.

If someone else can own you, that would make you their slave. But slavery completely violates the Consistency Principle: who gets to own slaves, and who is subject to being enslaved? You would be making different rules for different people, which you don't get to do.

While in your head you may be able to create another Mexican standoff of simple, caricature, Schrodinger's slave masters like you did with persons A-E in your initiation of force argument, when these are real people in real situations there is a lot more complexity that you don't account for that would make it disingenuous to simplify down to some stick figures with letters for names. You say

So although the Consistency Principle allows for the trading of private property, it doesn't actually let you transfer ownership of yourself. Any contract where you sell yourself into slavery is therefore completely invalid. But an axe, or a few hours a day, you can voluntarily trade that for whatever you believe is fair.

But where do you draw the line? How many hours a day can I sell before it is slavery? 10? 12? 18? This seem like nitpicking on details, but the problem is that you have introduced a dependency upon a definition whose meaning you have not proved with first order logic. The fact that these dependencies exist invalidates the position that only a flaw in your logic can disprove your argument.

The issue is that much of your argument is not built on first order logic but rather on assumptions and definitions that are not truly axiomatic. You do not go through the process of proving these and so, quite possibly, there is a logical contradiction hiding in proposition left off the page. While there may be no flaw in the logic that you have written down, the underpinning of your arguments are not thoroughly proved using first order logic alone.

With all that said, I'm no philosopher, just a mathematician who has gone through the experience of building mathematics up from only 16-20 indisputable axioms. I have had professors & peers harp on the logical details of every word and symbol in every proof I've ever written, so I find it hard to let such egregious holes in first order logic slide through an argument in which you have put so much thought.