Freedomain Radio

The thing that I disagree with you on (Stefan) is your conclusion that taxation is morally evil, that it's the government pointing a gun in your face taking money by force.

Ignoring any argument surrounding whether taxation is morally evil for a moment ...

"tax. A forced burden…A tax is not regarded as a debt in the ordinary sense of the term, for the reason that a tax does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer…" Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1255-56.

It would appear that even the people who write the books to help people (such as lawyers) to make "laws" and understand what they mean would disagree with you, Carl. Can you explain this?

You've stated that people would still want certain goods and services, such as roads, for example, and other things currenty provided mainly by government. On that point, I would agree. Even without government taxation, I would probably still need and want roads (it's easier to drive on smooth pavement than rocks and trees), but if the services government provides are so valuable, then why must people be forced to pay for them without their consent?

Furthermore, I've seen you make the argument that sometimes people voluntarily buy things they don't want in order to have something they do want, for example, additional services bundled into a cell phone plan. The key difference however is that the cell phone company is not compelling me to purchase ANY of the services, including the fundamental service I am seeking. Another fundamental difference is that I am free to seek a competing service provider who doesn't roll in additional services I don't want or need.

"Anything done under the guise of consent can be done by consent. The men and women pretending to be "government" only have to do one thing differently: provide their services on a voluntary basis, like everybody else." -- Marc Stevens

I apologize for jumping into the conversation midstream.

I think that for clarity, it may help to put things this way.

• It's a system that was created a long time ago by people we have no hope of influencing (unless we make a super 70's movie retro time machine)
  
• Run by people that we have only a small say in selecting (and no real way of controlling once they get elected)
  
• Everyone is FORCED (there is no way around this word) to pay for services that they may or may not approve of.

I don't see how forcing people to pay for services they never asked for is ever a moral thing.  You present the computer and car argument -- when you buy a computer or a car, you get things that you don't want among the things you do, and you have to pay for them.

This argument would be a valid one if it we had any choice at all about the government.

But we don't.  We can vote, sure, but no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in, and the taxes you're already paying rarely go away.  You will have government whether you like it or not, and you'll pay for it to -- and on top of that, you have no choice about what services the government is actually going to provide you.  If you buy a car, even if you MUST buy a car, you get to choose what brand you buy, and if you go to a dealership and buy new you can also choose what bells and whistles you want (stereos and so on).  Now, you may have to pay for, say, a back seat whether you have friends and kids to cart around or not, but you still have a choice -- and you can always choose to get a moped if all else fails.

The proper analogy, if we're going to use cars as an analogy for government services, truly is a situation where all dealerships in a society where everyone MUST drive a car are saying, "If you want a car, you'll pay market price for a new mustang with all the options."  And if you don't want a car, your three options are either flee to a different country (where you have to drive a prius instead of a mustang) or pay wicked fines (after paying which you still have to buy the car), or go to jail (where everyone around you has to pay for a car for you since you can't work.) 

I mean, is that moral?

Seems to me like we should be able to choose whether or not we want to drive a car.  We should be able to choose what kind of car we drive.  We should, if we're buying new, have some say over what's in the car even if there are some standard features that you just have to have.  We should be able to sell the car when it's old, and we definitely shouldn't be punished for choosing not to buy a car -- only choosing not to pay for a car that we bought in full knowledge of the costs and benefits. And if we're rich, we should be able to settle for paying for our own car instead of paying for everyone else's too -- unless we expressly choose to.  As it is, we're paying huge amounts for services that we'll probably never even hear about and will never know about, whereas at a reasonable car dealership they'll explain the physics of the engine for you if you really want to know and they understand it themselves.

And let's not forget -- the fact that everyone is a victim of this force does not change the fact that it's the initiation of force against innocent people.   If you see everyone in your neighborhood being extorted by the mafia, it certainly does not justify the mafia's actions.  Mass rape does not make rape okay. 

But I'll end this with a question.  Or two, maybe.

How is it NOT evil for a government to sell us services that we don't choose, aren't fully informed about, MUST buy from them, cannot readily verify reasonable pricing, and cannot meaningfully resist (we can protest, but no one cares about protests anymore -- our only reasonable resistence -- a closed wallet, is off limits)?  How is it NOT evil for them to fine us for not paying for these services, kidnap us and drag us before a court (which inherently exists to support this system), and then throw us in a rape-pit prison or shoot or beat us if we try to resist being kidnapped? 

Does that kinda help cement the FDR position?

Carl:

webdever:

It's interesting that you would feel deluded, right? You wouldn't feel like you had made a mistake yourself but that someone else had manipulated you into believing what you do now. Again, just for fun, who would it have been who deluded you and how would that have taken place?

Also, you said you'd want to tell others, who would you tell and how do you think those conversations would go down?

I don't want to play make believe anymore, I don't see the point.  If you have one, please tell me what it is.  Otherwise concentrate on your efforts to prove me wrong, and if you're able to convince me then we can talk about how I feel and what I would do.

Ok, my apologies.

I'm still waiting for your answer to my previous question though, in the scenario I outlined where I would create an organization that provides services and takes taxes, would you owe this organization the money you were billed, and if so, why is there only one organization in our economy that runs this way?

You also said we want the things the government gives us, the things our taxes are supposed to pay for. If we want these, why not just take away the threat of arrest and provide the services only after we have expressed our desire for them? Do you not think claiming it is just to charge people for a situation they had no choice to enter into because they are receiving services is a bit analogous to defending the slave master because his slave eats his meals and uses his hoe?

Retrapher, thirdear, Belaak and webdever, you guys make good points.  This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to get when I made my original post.  I'm trying to reply to 4 posts with one and last time I tried doing that it spit a bunch of nonsense characters on my post so I cut and past the quotes in this post and bolded them.  The non-bold text are my replies.

"tax. A forced burden…A tax is not regarded as a debt in the ordinary sense of the term, for the reason that a tax does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer…" Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1255-56.
It would appear that even the people who write the books to help people (such as lawyers) to make "laws" and understand what they mean would disagree with you, Carl. Can you explain this?

Taxes are forced, I agree.  Go have a look at my posts, I never disputed this. 

But then there's lot's of things that I'm forced to do in my life.  I'm forced to go to work to earn a living.  No one is pointing a gun to my head but the alternative (living on the street and scrounging for food) isn't really much of an option.  I'm also forced to do whatever my boss tells me to do or I lose my job.  And even if I don't like what my boss is asking of me and get another job I'll have another boss and be forced to do what he tells me.  You can be forced to spend time with family members, inlaws for example, that you don't really like.  The consequences of not going are deteriorated relationships with family members, friends or spouses.  Perhaps this is more of an obligation than being forced, but nevertheless you still have to do something that you don't want to do.  I'm forced to obey all laws.  If I break a speed limit because I believe it to be too low I will still have to pay the speeding ticket.  What I'm trying to say is that being forced to do something is not the only requirement to make the action immoral.  Just because I am being forced to do something doesn't necessarily mean that I'm the victim of an evil act.

You've stated that people would still want certain goods and services, such as roads, for example, and other things currenty provided mainly by government. On that point, I would agree. Even without government taxation, I would probably still need and want roads (it's easier to drive on smooth pavement than rocks and trees), but if the services government provides are so valuable, then why must people be forced to pay for them without their consent?

What would happen if, when it was that time of year to pay taxes, the government let us choose which taxes we wanted to pay.  Say they gave us a list with stuff on there like: bridge construction, pollution control, border guards, medical care, garbage cleanup, education, etc., and we simply had to check off which of these items that we were willing to pay for.  What would happen?  The answer is that no one would pay their taxes (except for a few very honest individuals) and there would be next to zero tax revenue.  You can't provide all the things that people want and need (medical care, garbage cleanup, etc.) based on the honor system.  You have to force people to pay.  There is no other way to get this money to get those goods in the system that we have in place right now.

And as I mentioned in previous posts, you're still forced to do things in stateless society.  I'm still forced to pay for roads, do what my boss says, pay for medical care, pay for garbage cleanup, etc.  You do get more flexibility in the stateless society for some things, (ie. you can choose what roads you'll pay for) but the fact remains that you still HAVE to pay.  The difference is that in a stateless society you just won't get the service if you don't pay, whereas in a democratic society you'll still get the service if you don't pay but you'll face jail time. 

I want to reiterate again that I am not a supporter of taxation, and I am not committed to it.  Stefan has convinced me that a complete free-market stateless system is better and more efficient than using taxation.  My ONLY goal in this entire thread (with regard to taxation) is to show that taxation is not an immoral system, however inferior and inefficient it may be.

Seems to me like we should be able to choose whether or not we want to drive a car.  We should be able to choose what kind of car we drive.  We should, if we're buying new, have some say over what's in the car even if there are some standard features that you just have to have.  We should be able to sell the car when it's old, and we definitely shouldn't be punished for choosing not to buy a car -- only choosing not to pay for a car that we bought in full knowledge of the costs and benefits. And if we're rich, we should be able to settle for paying for our own car instead of paying for everyone else's too -- unless we expressly choose to.  As it is, we're paying huge amounts for services that we'll probably never even hear about and will never know about, whereas at a reasonable car dealership they'll explain the physics of the engine for you if you really want to know and they understand it themselves.

You make some really good points and I agree with you to a certain extent.  Perhaps I don't want to pay the taxes that get a garbage man to my house once a week, and maybe I want to save a bit of money and take the garbage to the dump myself.  But I can't do that now.  If I take the garbage to the dump myself, I'm still going to have to pay the tax.  I don't like it.  I don't like it at all.  I want to have as many options and freedoms as possible.  But just because I don't like it does not make it immoral.  The fact that EVERYONE has to pay these taxes and follow these rules is what makes it moral, if one household wasn't forced to pay then it would be immoral.

And let's not forget -- the fact that everyone is a victim of this force does not change the fact that it's the initiation of force against innocent people.   If you see everyone in your neighborhood being extorted by the mafia, it certainly does not justify the mafia's actions.  Mass rape does not make rape okay. 

But who is initiating the force?  Who's the "mafia"?  Do you say it's the government?  But government officials have to pay taxes just like the rest of us do.  If a government officicial doesn't pay they are subject to the same fines and penalties like everyone else is.  That's not the case with the mafia.  See my comments at the bottom of this post.

You also said we want the things the government gives us, the things our taxes are supposed to pay for. If we want these, why not just take away the threat of arrest and provide the services only after we have expressed our desire for them? Do you not think claiming it is just to charge people for a situation they had no choice to enter into because they are receiving services is a bit analogous to defending the slave master because his slave eats his meals and uses his hoe?

 If everybody thought "X is bad but nobody else is going to do anything about it so I might as well leave X be" then logically "X" would remain forever. In our case, "X" is "paying taxes". You choose to blame tax evaders rather than the tax collectors. If a guy ran off from a slave labor camp, would you be more mad at him for making your workload more or would  you be mad at the foreman who was forcing you to work? The State is not merely a top-down system, but it functions by having it's subjects turn on each other (like how you direct your anger towards tax evaders rather than tax collectors).

 
The reason why the slave analogy doesn't work is because the "slavemaster" is also doing the same work as the slaves and is subject to all the same penalties of disobedience as all the rest of the slaves are.  Theoretically speaking, the people in government have to pay taxes just as everyone else does.  Although they may determine the level of taxation, they too are also subject to these levels of taxation as well.

If Bob murders his father to collect the inheritence, he is doing a horrible thing to another person (ending his life) for his own benefit.  If Bob steals Doug's TV, Doug is doing a bad thing to Doug for his own benefit.  If Bob rapes Jill he is making himself happy at the expense of Jill.  If Bob defrauds an elderly couple of their savings, Bob is making himself richer at the expense of the couple.  Take any immoral action and you will see someone benefiting from the action and someone getting screwed.  So now I look at taxation and I ask myself, "Who benefits and who gets screwed?"   I suppose you guys are going to say that the taxpayer gets screwed, alright fine, since everyone is a taxpayer (including government officials) then everyone gets screwed.  OK so who benefits?  Well government employees get paid with tax dollars so at first it looks like they are the ones that benefit but they have to pay taxes on the money they got from taxpayers just like everyone else.  So as far as I can tell, no one benefits from a taxation system.  What I mean by that is that no one gets a clear advantage over anyone else with this system.  So the conclusion seems to be that everyone gets screwed and no one benefits.  Clearly this is an inefficient system then, but immoral it is not.

Carl:

Seems to me like we should be able to choose whether or not we want to drive a car.  We should be able to choose what kind of car we drive.  We should, if we're buying new, have some say over what's in the car even if there are some standard features that you just have to have.  We should be able to sell the car when it's old, and we definitely shouldn't be punished for choosing not to buy a car -- only choosing not to pay for a car that we bought in full knowledge of the costs and benefits. And if we're rich, we should be able to settle for paying for our own car instead of paying for everyone else's too -- unless we expressly choose to.  As it is, we're paying huge amounts for services that we'll probably never even hear about and will never know about, whereas at a reasonable car dealership they'll explain the physics of the engine for you if you really want to know and they understand it themselves.

You make some really good points and I agree with you to a certain extent.  Perhaps I don't want to pay the taxes that get a garbage man to my house once a week, and maybe I want to save a bit of money and take the garbage to the dump myself.  But I can't do that now.  If I take the garbage to the dump myself, I'm still going to have to pay the tax.  I don't like it.  I don't like it at all.  I want to have as many options and freedoms as possible.  But just because I don't like it does not make it immoral.  The fact that EVERYONE has to pay these taxes and follow these rules is what makes it moral, if one household wasn't forced to pay then it would be immoral.

And let's not forget -- the fact that everyone is a victim of this force does not change the fact that it's the initiation of force against innocent people.   If you see everyone in your neighborhood being extorted by the mafia, it certainly does not justify the mafia's actions.  Mass rape does not make rape okay. 

But who is initiating the force?  Who's the "mafia"?  Do you say it's the government?  But government officials have to pay taxes just like the rest of us do.  If a government officicial doesn't pay they are subject to the same fines and penalties like everyone else is.  That's not the case with the mafia.  See my comments at the bottom of this post.

From the American Heritage Dictionary --

steal  

1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary; steal the puck from an opponent.

The definitions go on about taking kisses and spotlights, but this is all we need for our purposes.

You've agreed that the government is forcing us to give up our money for things we don't want.

The government takes money from us without right or permission -- even the United States Government recognizes a right to property.  By taking our property without permission they are violating our right to property -- hence, they are STEALING.

I would ask, "On what planet is stealing made okay by the mass practice of it?" but then of course, I would be ignoring the fact that Earth seems to be exactly that planet.  If everyone in society always stole everyone else's stuff, it would be okay simply because everyone suffered from it equally?  

I assume (please tell me if I'm wrong) that you don't approve of stealing (or that you think it's immoral to put it more in the terms of the current debate).  Why do you approve of it when it's done on a mass scale?  I mean, just because being victimized is the norm does not make it moral.  If everyone were equally the victim of rape would it be suddenly moral?  And remember, politicians actually get the opposite of taxed, since their income comes from tax revenues while they are politicians.  They may have to pay a sales tax at Walmart (or a capital gains tax or any other incidental tax), but they're paying it with money that comes from the taxes, so when they pay that sales tax they are in essence investing in their next paycheck.  Indeed, the same is true of all government employees.  So everyone in society is taxed... except the people who make money from taxes.

You also argued that you are forced to do many things, including work for a living.  But you forget that you aren't being forced by humans to work for a living -- the neccesity of labor is inherent in the nature of life itself, since if you didn't work to get food you would die.  Society simply gives you options for different types of work -- that is, instead of hunting and picking berries, you can choose to be an architect or work at 7/11, but the essence of what you're doing is the same -- working to feed yourself and your dependents.  But there is no "natural state" for taxes -- if no one taxed you, you would not starve to death.  Taxes are imposed from above by people who make money off of taxes and then pass on the excess to throw the taxpayers a bone or two.  The neccesity of taxes comes from the guns you will face if you try to avoid getting arrested for not paying them.  The neccesity of work comes from the fact that without it, you wouldn't be able to support your lifestyle.

Carl:

The reason why the slave analogy doesn't work is because the "slavemaster" is also doing the same work as the slaves and is subject to all the same penalties of disobedience as all the rest of the slaves are.  Theoretically speaking, the people in government have to pay taxes just as everyone else does.  Although they may determine the level of taxation, they too are also subject to these levels of taxation as well.

The slavemaster analogy still applies here. Since when can I gear trillions of dollars of other people's money into the project of my choice? I can't, but a politician can. The fact that politicians pay taxes does not change the situation whereby one group imposes a set of rules different from what they apply to themselves. If a politician said "I can do with your money as I please and you can do with my money as you please" then that would be UPB. However, the politician does not allow us to choose what to do with his money. (Read this paragraph right before reading the next paragraph after the quote to see my point more clearer.)

So the conclusion seems to be that everyone gets screwed and no one benefits.  Clearly this is an inefficient system then, but immoral it is not.

Dozens of wars, thousands of lobbyists, and trillions of dollars of counterfeited currency don't show how one group is clearly benefiting over another?

To be more specific about the counterfeited currency part, governments control currencies by FORCE by preventing the usual competitors (e.g. metals) with a high barrier to entry (high capital gains taxes). All the while, they control who can and who cannot can get their hands on the newest printed money. This is most certainly not UPB-compliant.

This is a fun thread to read!  Great posts!

In the scenario I outlined where I would create an organization that provides services and takes taxes, would you owe this organization the money you were billed, and if so, why is there only one organization in our economy that runs this way? 

Well government employees get paid with tax dollars so at first it looks like they are the ones that benefit but they have to pay taxes on the money they got from taxpayers just like everyone else.  So as far as I can tell, no one benefits from a taxation system.  What I mean by that is that no one gets a clear advantage over anyone else with this system.  So the conclusion seems to be that everyone gets screwed and no one benefits.  Clearly this is an inefficient system then, but immoral it is not.

If I shoot you in the head and then shoot myself in the head it is irrational, but not moral.

Belaak:

steal  

1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary; steal the puck from an opponent.

The government takes money from us without right or permission -- even the United States Government recognizes a right to property.  By taking our property without permission they are violating our right to property -- hence, they are STEALING.

We all agree that the government forces us to pay taxes.  This is a bad thing because we do not have any choice in the matter, we have no control, we are just given a dollar figure by the government and we are forced to pay it.  But a greater good comes of this.  With this tax money we are able to pay for the things that we all want and need to function as a society (hospitals, police, sanitation, etc.).  If a parent punishes a child, let's say by spanking them, then the parent is doing something that, on it's own, is bad (inflicting pain on a child) but we morally excuse this behaviour because it is for a greater good in teaching the child a valuable lesson.  Spanking the child without any good reason would be morally wrong, just like taxing a society for no good reason would also be morally wrong.  Theoretically this is not the case however because the money is is going towards goods that we all need.

Furthermore, our property rights are determined by ourselves and the society that we live in.  I know I'm opening a whole new can of worms here but that's another thing that I disagree with Stefan about and it's something I mentioned in my opening post (I was disputing his argument that we have property rights at some foundational level).  Property rights are not something that is innate, it's not something that we have a inherent to our nature.  I totally agree with Stefan that morality is objective, but property rights are not.  And yes, it is perfectly consistent to say that property rights are subjective while stealing is not, ie. If we have property rights then it is wrong to steal someone's property.  It is entirely possible to have a society where no one owns anything and everyone owns everything.  It's like a lot of the tools and equipment inside a company, anyone can go and use any of the equipment and no one can really say that they own anything (well it's all "owned" by the company).  Our level of ownership is determined by the society that we live in.  In my society we have ownership of whatever we buy from the money that we earn minus the amount of taxes that we have to pay to the government.  The money that we pay the government isn't "ours" to begin with, it's the government's, therefore they can't be accused of stealing.  Maybe the argument we're having now isn't really about taxation, maybe it all comes down to property rights.

Belaak:

And remember, politicians actually get the opposite of taxed, since their income comes from tax revenues while they are politicians.  They may have to pay a sales tax at Walmart (or a capital gains tax or any other incidental tax), but they're paying it with money that comes from the taxes, so when they pay that sales tax they are in essence investing in their next paycheck.  Indeed, the same is true of all government employees.  So everyone in society is taxed... except the people who make money from taxes.

OK, so all government workers are evil?  Firemen, Policemen, Garbage collectors, etc. are also being paid with tax dollars.

Belaak:

 But there is no "natural state" for taxes -- if no one taxed you, you would not starve to death.

Sure there's a natural state.  No taxes: no roads, no police, no firemen, etc.  Essentially no society (no modern one at the very least).

webdever:

If I shoot you in the head and then shoot myself in the head it is irrational, but not moral.

OK you're right, good point.  I have said all along though that taxation makes sense even if it's not the most efficient or effective system that there is, so my argument still stands.

Carl: what to you determines whether an action is moral or immoral?

webdever:

In the scenario I outlined where I would create an organization that provides services and takes taxes, would you owe this organization the money you were billed, and if so, why is there only one organization in our economy that runs this way? 

Sorry that I haven't replied to your scenario yet, it's not that I'm avoiding it, it's just that I don't have the time to reply to every post in this thread. 

The government is not a part of the economy in the same way that a company is, it's different from a regular company which is why your analogy doesn't work.  There are some things that a a free market has a difficult time handling.  One thing is public goods like roads or parks.  A guy who starts a company that builds roads would have the interesting problem of trying to figure out to collect revenue to make his company profitible.  What about a company that makes a city park... do you charge every person that comes in to take a walk?  Then you have the problems of third-party effects, stuff like pollution. Who's going do anything about the pulp mill that's polluting the river and killing all the fish?  The government is supposed to deal with these kind of problems, the ones that the free market can't which is why it's not a part of it.  That's why you can't compare the government to companies.

Carl,

Those are all necessary questions.  Doubt is our friend :)

But, Carl, do you think that anarchists haven't asked these exact same questions (and many many more) before deciding on volunterism?  

Do you think that we were magically born into anarchism without questioning it (like 99% of all Statists)?  We were all born into the Statist mindset.  It is probably not the anarchists who lack basic questioning of our belief system.

Your questions presuppose that we haven't even considered the simplest objections (about roads, parks, etc).  Most anarchists go through a long process of questioning things (it took me 3 years to go from Statist to Anarchist).  

So, I hope you can give us a little credit for having considered basic things like road and parks.

I think you could save yourself (and others) alot of time by listening to Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy.

They're free, entertaining and relatively short.

I must admit a bit of frustration in dealing with this discussion because I feel like you're moving the goalpost out of reach every time I get over it.  It seemed as though before you were claiming that taxes are inefficient but morally unblemished but now you're claiming that taxes are morally excusable since they're for the greater good.

But I jumped on this train so I might as well keep riding.

You say, "Spanking the child without any good reason would be morally wrong, just like taxing a society for no good reason would also be morally wrong."  You've also said previously that you see the system to be inefficient and there are good alternatives for provision of services we need -- but not morally flawed.  If we know that the system is flawed and there are good alternatives...

...aren't we maintaining it for no reason?  And in that case, aren't we being "Spanked" (taxed) for no reason?  That is to say, let's say that a child is in a kitchen, and a parent runs in and spanks him, yelling, "DO not touch the stove!!!!!"  The parent is obviously trying to serve a greater good by "teaching the child a lesson."  But it would probably be just as or more effective to explain to the child that touching the stove is a bad thing because it will hurt really really bad ifyou don't know whatyou're doing, so they should wait until they get a bit bigger.  Since there was another, nonviolent solution available, isn't it inexcusable that a parent would hit their child for being near a stove?  In the same way, there are free market solutions to the problems of roads, fire control, and so on -- so why are we "spanking ourselves" without a good reason?  Isn't it wrong? 

I mean, as sexy are Robin Hood sounds, people who own businesses or cure diseases these days aren't the nobles of yesteryear whose fortune was built on slavery.  They're innocent, hard-working people who deserve income for their trouble,  and having money doesn't automatically make them guilty of some greasy crime that needs 'a punishin'.

And regardless of how you define property rights, I have trouble seeing how the money you earn through working should belong to the government before it belongs to you.  Since the "Government" is an abstract construction that does not exist in reality except when someone imposes it on you, it makes no sense that the government has an inherent right to any of your income before you have a choice what to do with it.  Now, I could see that argument being made if you were being legitimately charged for services that you had chosen expressly to purchase without any coercion, and you decided not to pay.  Since taxes are in essence theft (if a burglar steals and donates part of it to a charity, we wouldn't call him a saint), there is absolutely no reason to recognize the government's right to take taxes at all... ever. 

In summation, I think I've made a pretty good case for taxes being equivalent to theft, and your counter-argument was basically, "It's theft for the greater good!"  I showed that since we know there are alternatives to tax-based solutions for problems like roads and the like, there is no reason to keep taxing us, and so there is no moral excuse for it. 

Let's just remember, if we all agree that something is neccesary, there is no reason to force us to do it.