In his defence, I find arguments that it's "coercive" for the state to take money from me in return for services rendered but not for my landlord to do the same to generally be tenuous[1]. The reality is that we live in a world where various entities claim "ownership" of resources, and governments are able to claim the "rule of law" over large areas of territory, and despite the conflicts and examples of egregious unfairness the system generates, we're usually better off for it than fighting for ourselves.

[1]I'm equally free to leave both my rental contract (upon expiry) and the UK tax regime for cheaper/better alternatives. In the absence of the government "coercively" imposing rule of law backed by social norms I would not only be free from the government redirecting a proportion of my pay packet to other causes, but also from any incentive whatsoever to divert a similarly large proportion of my income to be able to live in a property the overseas-based owner has quite possibly never even visited.

I think poster richcollins' definition of state socialism ("state socialism implies coercive sharing") is accurate and wonderfully succinct.

However, like it or not, we are born into a social contract. Those who want opt-out of that social contract are a bit like the child who, when faced with family responsibilities states: "I didn't ask to be born!"

Parent's response: "Sorry, thems the breaks kid, now go look after your brother and finish your chores."

While I enjoyed the Ayn Rand books I've read, I think it's a little naive to expect any large society to work on a strictly opt-in basis.

In his defense (despite an apparent lack of understanding of what "socialism" actually means), the author wasn't talking about state socialism, which isn't the only form of socialism.