> A chunk of familial diaspora is "disabled", but only on paper.
...what does "some might game the system" have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people?
> A climbing gym I used to frequent installed wheelchair access at great expense [...]
...what does any of that have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people?
> If by "disabled" you mean "unable to contribute to society", since when?
Ever since people were moved by hardships of those around them. Beggars have existed for all of recorded history I believe? And they don't beg for fun.
> Resources are finite, and every culture has to figure out where it draws the line.
Could you spell out what you are implying here? "Resources are finite" only contributes to the "taxation is extortion" argument if you insist that any non-zero amount spent improving the lives of non-contributors is better spent maximizing economical gain. Following that logic quickly leads to "kill retirees immediately".
> Socialized healthcare uses political power to determine who lives and dies -- the Prime Minister and his friends are guaranteed better care than your grandma.
Not to a significant degree, no. If they get cancer, they'll more or less have the same treatment options available to them. Also, why shouldn't the prime minister get more encompassing treatment? Society also pays for bodyguards for them, but not for grandma. Why is that?
> Privatized healthcare uses money -- Jeff Bezos and his friends are also guaranteed better care than your grandma.
Again, how is that relevant to "should society support disabled people"?
You've tried really hard to come up with scenarios where society is (under certain narrow criteria) worse off chipping in. That... does exactly nothing to answer the question whether there are cases where society should chip in. And whether taxation to accomplish that goal is therefore extortion or not.