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).
Go live in a place where there is no government. (They do exist.) Let us know how your experience goes.
1. "majority rule" stated in the sense of "democracy" is not the issue in such a trust.
The bequest of the Constitution was not by majority rule, it was by supermajority and created a rule of law laid down by the sovereign authority of the People to create a trust in perpetuity for the benefit of their Posterity.
An individual may decline such a bequest by renouncing his status and removing himself from access to its benefits. He may not however just quit participating in its requirements (specifically taxation) without such a renunciation.
2. Debt for service rendered benefits received.
Does not apply to the case of the bequest, the reqirements of the trust may be abrogated by simply renouncing participation and removing onesself from access to the trust's benefits and its protections of the law it establishes.
The only debt that might be said to accrue is that of not meeting the obligations of support under the trust while still a citizen, a matter of law, not of contracted service.
3. The social contract argument:
Doesn't apply either, the status of citizen is may be unilaterally renounced by individual action and departing. No social contract forcing obligating one to stay and perform, no consideration has been tendered to obligate you in the sense of a contract at all. It didn't even require your consent to become a citizen. The assumption arises from an accident of birth, or naturalization. Either status may be renounced unilaterally, and the individual may depart.
4. Moral debt argument to those in need.
You may renounce your citizenship at any time, doing so ande departing from the protections and jurisdiction of the trust, removes you from any future call on your resources.