Ok so someone help me out... your position is NO taxes? If that's the case how does the .gov fund anything? From streets, to construction, to employees (RMV, EMS, Fire, Police, Education, etc. etc.).
Is the position more closely that you don't agree how the money is being spent? If that's the case then change the guys who are spending it.
I'm just looking for an alterior method of running the .gov, whether it be a town, county, state, or the Feds. Last I checked, even the "Founding Fathers" weren't against taxes, they were against taxes without having a say where they go.
Please make your position a little clearer if possible.
I am against taxes being taken by force and not paid voluntarily. The founders were not necessarily as I covered before not just against taxation without representation (which we don't get) they were against taxing without consent, they were for government of consent.
The ironic thing is if you were arguing for minarchy and our government was minarchist, anarchy would not be gaining the popularity it is now. It is the statist who are leading to their own downfall.
I can live with a gas tax as a use tax, but even that is too high and mismanaged, my state will tax itself on projects funded by the gas tax up to 50% making the cost of these 1/3 more to commit fraud on it's citizens so they can take more taxes into the general fund that were not approved.
The other problem with your theory of representation, is there is no protection for the minority because it means either the stronger party (not necessarily the majority party) or the majority party wins and that the rest must capitulate to their demands. These are things the constitution were to restrict and why as brought out by WW, taxes were to be by other means than directly upon the people.
Your assumption that because government has pirated so many of the items mentions that these wouldn't occur or would be worse is a false premise. Please read Bastiat's What is seen and what is unseen.
Madison vetoed a roads bill as unconstitutional, he thought it was a good idea but would require a constitutional amendment. Proactive policing to a group of people who just fought a war partly due to the unconstitutional proactive policing of the Crown and his peons the redcoats, would be a repugnant notion. But Dale Brown in Detroit is a shining example where you do not need police paid for by force. 70% of U.S.'s firefighters are volunteer now. Why change that it works great. The government should not be funding construction. I will repeat again though the assumption these would not occur because the government funds much of it now is faulty in logic.
If a government was to exist under natural law, and the theory of justice one may make an argument it exists to 1)protect rights 2) provide defense 3) provide a system for arbitrating disputes (civil and criminal) 4) and my least favorite provide a form of policing to protect our rights. Yet this is rarely the argument put forth by those who worship at the alter of the state. In jingoistic nationalism they put the state above people and create for themselves and force it upon others a top down unnatural system which then provides a rationalization for them to treat others as heretics for not sharing in their city on the hill vision of the state.
