Point taken, but in the case of an armed home invader threatening death and robbery and wearing a badge, I believe the line between allowance and non-resistance is dissolved by the immediate physical threat (given that a priori civilian slave status is not upheld).
...that the government creates 'agents' (having the same name, except all capitalized) which represent people and then uses a blurring between this "legal fiction" and the real person to enforce its will.
This is beyond contention - simply look up the definition of the word "individual" in any government code, and you will find it groups with other corporate terms which hold in common the sole item of having the government as their creator. Since that manifestly does not apply to natural human beings, they are therefore referred to, uniformly, as "individuals," which are defined as their "corporate agents" that are "presumed" to be acting in their stead, and for which they are personally responsible.
Finding a place in the government code which describes the process of rebutting this presumption is, however... problematic.
Perhaps here:
http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t17b.htm
http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm
I also read an article, somewhere, where the term “patronymic name” [IIRC] was used to challenge the identity of the ALL CAPS name verses the [correct] Initial Caps name.