To summarize this, the argument that a Christmas Carol is "left" propaganda is pretty silly - some "on the left" may use it as such, but that would be the equivalent of someone arguing that a movie which features the American flag is "Nazi", just because "Hitler" wanted people to salute the country's flag.
As far as the silly arguments here, they're pretty easy to address:
1. Rhetoric about "stealing", as far as law and government is concerned, is just that, if it's based on an argument of "non-aggression", then anarchy would be the only consistent conclusion, and in reality everyone participating in government, or even so much as using "fighting words" on the internet is already participating in aggression to begin with, not to mention that this is just historical and human ignorance, given that "taxation" in some form or another has been around since ancient times, and that our system of government was founded on "no taxation without representation" - if it was "founded" on non-aggression, then America never would have existed to begin with, since all government is "aggression" by that very definition. Much as the Founders never would have fought in the war of Independence, but instead would have retired to a monastery and practiced a life of devout non-violence instead.
So in practice, it's only an objection to certain types of "aggression", and only in certain contexts (e.x. such as the false public or private dichotomies), when in reality "aggression" can and does occur in the context of any institution and social arrangement, so this would mean they would have to oppose aggression in the context of "private" institutions or interactions, or informal "government" or hierarchies, much as they would in "public" institutions, both of which are interrelated, and not entirely separate except in pure abstraction. As well as opposing the immoral worldviews on a voluntary basis which would have no qualms about using aggression, theft, or force to get its way so long as they existed, whether in public or private institutions (such as private institutions having worked to levy taxes on their competitors, showing no regard for the principles of non-aggression themselves)
And likewise, in practice, eliminating aggression entirely would be physically impossible; at best one could minimize it, but if one so much as spoke in a public place, they would create sound waves which "aggress" upon another's ear drums without consent, and by non-aggression logic, this would be no different than blasting a sonic weapon into a person's ear.
It also ignores the fact that government is required to sustain and preserve rights, such as those enumerated in the constitution, and that none of these would exist in an anarchy, or context in which individuals have an amoral worldview such as "might makes right" (which is not the view which America's government and institutions are founded on, in spite of the lie) - the fact that non-aggression advocates themselves use aggression, online or off, or think nothing of participating in intuitions, whether their own governments, private institutions, or venues such as the internet and social media which have received public funding, or contradictory appealing to scholars (e.x. John Locke and his outdated psychology) whose views were developed in the context of "public" institutions; a true "anarchist" having no need for them or the appealing to any scholar of past or present - proves that, in practice, the views are nonsense by their own tacit admissions, except in pure theory, this of course not meaning "all aggression is created equal".
---
In regards to other notions that others are appealing to, such as the myth of "creating dependency", "the market", or the other popular myths or axioms upon which these views are based and blindly held, as opposed to observed thoroughly by those who hold them and mindlessly repeat them based on mis-informative mass media, as if being anywhere on the same footing as an actual theorist themselves and having calculated it, as opposed to mindlessly and emotionally regurgitating it.
In reality, pure "dependency" or "independency" only exist in pure abstractions to begin with, unless one lives on an island by themselves like Robinson Crusoe, and not even then; in daily life people are dependent on things, whether others such as family, neighbors, coworkers, service people, systems such as their state's common law system and its infrastructure, or systems such as the ecosystem and so forth, whether they acknowledge this reality or not, "pure dependency and independency" don't exist in pure abstraction.
If one is appealing to science, then it more or less debunks notions of "individualism" of the mythical variety described above; in biology, all of the individual organs, cells or parts of the body combine in order to create the whole, so one's body can view viewed as "a single unit", or as a collective of parts which comprise it, and they would need to both work in coordination, as well as acknowledge the sovereignty or uniqueness of each other in order for the body to healthily function (e.x. an organ becoming cancerous, or white blood cells attacking a transplanted organ).
So people can believe in mythical or exaggerated notions of "individualism" based, ironically generally in faith in some other one's axiom or belief on the subject if they want to, rather than independently inventing the notion themselves, but they can't substantiate it in that way without denying science, (much as they couldn't substantiate some extremist form of "collectivism" without denying science either, or acknowledging the uniqueness, hierarchy, and individual sovereignty of the individual organs which combine in function to make up the whole body).
