The nation instituted under the Constitution was designed to achieve certain strategic goals, by specific and enumerated powers and tactical means.
The intent and strategic goals:
We the People of the United States, in Order to
- form a more perfect Union,
- establish Justice,
- insure domestic Tranquility,
- provide for the common defense,
- promote the general Welfare, and
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That document, the "Constitution for the United States of America", is a statement of a will, an intent and law, a trust ratified by the People who ordained and established that nation compounded out of those People's own sovereign rights, properties and wealth as a bequest, that the intended protections and goals be propogated in trust to themselves and their Posterity as beneficiaries.
The means to finance and perpetuate that trust, to achieve the stated goals, was selected to be through levies of taxes in regard to its beneficiaries, the citizens of that nation. The specific means of those levies at the discretion of representative members of those beneficiaries in accord with the provisions of that trust.
So long as an individual may partake in the benefits and protections of that trust, one is lawfully bound to its provisions and to its support.
The individual may choose to rescind that birthright and duty laid by that trust through renouncing citizenship and leaving its shores and protection. In that lay the choice of the individual, "the consent of the governed" that renders the requirement of financial support by its beneficiaries through levy of taxes something other than mere "Theft".
Yes, I am well aware that the Constitution imposes a legal obligation to pay almost whatever taxes Congress votes to impose, subject only to either the uniformity or the apportionment constraint (depending on the nature of the tax). I have no argument with that, and have supported you efforts at educating those who believe otherwise.
However, the thesis I am making here is that the Constituion--and those who wrote it, approved it and voted it into effect had and have no moral right to impose taxes on me as a condition for living on my own property. You can't logically refute my claim by quoting edicts from the Constitution (or Federal statutes) that say otherwise. You have to argue from first principles. Care to try?
The individual may choose to rescind that birthright and duty laid by that trust through renouncing citizenship and leaving its shores and protection. In that lay the choice of the individual, "the consent of the governed" that renders the requirement of financial support by its beneficiaries through levy of taxes something other than mere "Theft".
I believe I demolished the entire basis of your argument in sections 1, 2 and 3 of my thesis. Nothing you say here demonstrates any reason to doubt the validity of the arguments I have already stated, showing that 1) the vote of a majority does not turn what would otherwise be theft into non-theft; 2) you don't owe anything in return for services you didn't agree to buy, and 3) you can't morally be coerced (extorted) into agreeing to conditions for being allowed to live (especially not on your own property).