Before I answer your questions, allow me to put my positions in context, with the hope that it will facilitate understanding my answers.

--------------------

Knowledge is an inverted pyramid. Specific, concrete ideas about facts are spread out over its largest (horizontal) surface at the top. The most fundamental, all-encompassing (self-evident) truth one can grasp about the universe is on the point at the bottom. All knowledge from the most fundamental at the bottom to least fundamental at the top is (and to be valid, must be) interconnected by the stairs and hallways of logic.

Hence a pair of maxims: You cannot resolve any difference in two opposing ideas if it stems from a disagreement on a more fundamental level. Similarly, any idea that is genetically dependent on a more fundamental erroneous principle is itself ipso facto an error as well.

----------------------

With that in mind, the short answer to the question "how could a society of men finance a government without taxation? is however they want to do it, as long as they do not coerce values from any other human being.

What keeps this from being just another flippant forum answer, is that taxation of any kind violates a political principle that is genetically dependent for its validity on an ethical principle that is dependent on an epistemological principle dependent on a metaphysical axiom. Without demonstrating a flaw in that logical chain, one must conclude that if men cannot find a way to fund government without taxation, they must choose between having no government or being immoral (acting contrary to their nature and the nature of the rest of existence by violating the property rights of the governed in order to form a government that is supposed to protect their property rights - a blatant self-contradiction).

Now that does not mean one cannot engage in the game of proposing various ways in which it could be actually achieved. And it cannot be much more than a game, because one cannot easily project from the only half-free context in which we live today what a 3/4 or 7/8 free society could achieve. That is the context that would have to exist before there would be enough people who understood in full the potential benefits of real and total liberty for all. The biggest mistake you can make is to apply the concept of no taxation (and no initiated force) within the contemporary context.

Rather than to take time not available to elaborate on the ideas I have gathered over the past 40 years of agreeing with the no force principle, I would prefer to give you a few hints and challenge you to make an honest effort to define how you think it could be done if coercion were removed as an option.

First of all, a government concerned only with the use of force for gain would be microscopic in size and price relative to the statist behemoths we fund today.

The best and most current model is the whole wide world of the internet, where payments by the largest corporations and the richest persons on earth for hyper-complex products of all kinds funds the simpler versions of products the poorest use for free. Look at the value of Google. How much do you pay for that service, even including advertising costs passed on to us in prices?

So, the bulk of the cost would be funded by those who have the most to lose from not being protected, and the most (good will) to gain from providing it for those not able to afford much contribution to it -- meaning those most able to fund it. The danger of them gaining undue influence would be controlled by two factors: a) government would have no benefits or privileges to dispense, and b) every penny spent by their customers is a vote for how corporate giants must behave -- and the masses have the most pennies, as Sam Walton unequivocally proved.

Additionally there are the lesser but valid sources of user fees, lotteries, and donations not to mention charges to other governments for protection provided contractually in conjunction with protecting ourselves.

The definition of value is both simple and specific: a value is that which one acts to gain or keep. That would include both tangible and intangible values. For instance, your reputation was created by the application of your ideas to your actions and an attempt to destroy it by misrepresentation (libel) would be the destruction of a value owned requiring physical force (defensive, not initiated) to restore it or compensate for its loss by the perpetrator.

The quantity and quality of a human being's life depends on the establishment of a code of values in principle to guide the actions that will produce the concrete values necessary to achieve physical well being, self-esteem and happiness.

Simplistic? Do not make it more complex than it has to be. 'First come first served' has been the operative principle forever. By whom acting by what standard could any man or men decree a set-aside for what future arrivals? Furthermore, there are no negative consequences to that principle, provided that no gang or government is allowed to use force to interfere with the market. In a free market, all ownership of values must be continually earned. The value of using land always competes with the value of leaving it unused.

Similarly, the definition and definers of "improvements" that would constitute ownership would be contextual, i.e. dependent on the nature of the property and the nature of the capacity to defend the rights to it. Government's assignment is to protect all rights, but all governments are in that task inherently limited to the protection the protected are willing to pay for. Protection beyond that point could be paid for by user fees, which would be an added source of revenue for the government, and that would in itself add so much to the cost of sustaining ownership of excessive claims that it would constitute an automatic self-regulation of the process.

In the American pioneer days, improvement of land was a fence around it. An improvement on Mars would be necessarily different. Or define the improvement required to own an airwave for communications. Or how about the whales in the ocean? Simply branding them would probably suffice. Then the Russian and Japanese whalers would own most of them and Greenpeace the rest. Eventually Greenpeace would sell theirs off to fund other projects when they realized that ranchers do not kill their last bull and cow. On the contrary, there would soon be buoys in the ocean warning ships: Whale Crossing Ahead!

Similarly, if rivers and lakes and streams had been condominiums from the start, they would not be polluted today - unless, of course the public overwhelmingly concurred. Remember that it was the government that tolerated all that destruction in the name of the public that condoned it and "fairness" to the needs of the companies that caused it.

First come first served is only disastrous when values are publicly owned. Then the one that consumes the most the fastest wins. When such values are privately owned, it is their sustenance as capital that will forever protect their value to man from extinction.