> Wait, is the government forcing you to work?

No, my own body forces me to work, because fulfilling the basic needs required for my survival costs money.

I'd like to address two points here: the first being the idea that taxes are voluntary, and the second being implicit claims about the nature of the democratic process itself. I will raise some labelled and ordered questions if you care to respond, I understand that this is a subject that can lend easily to hostility, but I want to remind everyone that I am not necessarily refuting what you are saying here, I am just asking follow-up questions to achieve a better understanding of your point of view. I hope we can continue this dialogue respectfully, and if at any point any points I am raising strike you as disrespectful or unkind, please let me know.

First: If paying taxes hypothetically became completely optional, and there were no legal penalties for not paying them (coercion, threat of force, state-sanctioned violence),

1a. Do you think tax revenues would stay almost the same, or be dramatically reduced by this change?

1b. Do you suppose most people would still voluntarily choose to pay taxes of their own free will if there were no individual consequences for not paying them?

1c. If answering in the negative to 1b, how do you characterize taxes being any more "voluntary" than the act of handing my wallet to an armed robber can be considered "voluntary"? i.e. if the motivating force that compels me to pay is a threat of force (either implicitly and roundaboutly, through the legal system, which eventually ends with one staring down the barrel of a gun, or explicitly and expediently, just skipping the other steps and going straight to staring down the barrel of a gun), isn't that ultimately the same act of extortion being justified with / "backed up by" the same threat of force from the same mechanism (firearm) regardless of whether it is by one man calling himself a robber or a million men calling themselves a government?

Second: As individuals, we do not exercise "control" through the democratic process, we express preferences.

2a. From my understanding (please correct me if this is wrong), the DNC has made it clear in both 2016 and in 2024, that the voters do not get to pick the nominee, the DNC's superdelegates do, and they retain the right to nominate candidates that do not have the majority or plurality of popular support even from within their own party, right?

2b. Expanding out to a broader level, does your comment intend to suggest or imply that all results of democratic processes are inherently and automatically voluntarily consented to by the populace on the basis that we were all allowed to vote on it?

2c. If the proposition made in 2b were true, wouldn't that necessarily imply that we both voluntarily consented to the election of Donald Trump, or the invasion of Iraq in search of WMD's that didn't exist? I can't speak for you, but I certainly did not consent to either of those.

2d. If, on the other hand, the proposition made in 2b were false, why is it we can choose not to consent some democratic process outcomes, like a president that we disapprove of, but not others, like the specific details of tax policy?

Hasn't this frequently been used as a go-to talking point of xenophobic nationalists pretty extensively in the past? I'm not accusing you of expressing either xenophobic or nationalist sentiment, but don't we have a social responsibility to avoid legitimizing these types of highly divisive talking points?

Also, isn't there room for a middle ground here? I'd love to sign up to opt out of receiving any social security or medicaid benefits permanently for the rest of my life in exchange for a small tax credit or deduction, smaller than the amount I'd expect to receive out of these programs. What's the downside there, if I'm still paying in grossly more than I'm receiving in benefits, and could be liberating taxpayers from a financial responsibility to me that they already can't afford, and which I don't need? I'd prefer to be part of the solution to the deficit, but me leaving the country only exacerbates the problem, given that I pay in close to an order of magnitude more than I get back in return.

I'm anti-war and not a fan of the defense industry, shouldn't I be allowed to stay and express policy preference for less defense spending, even though I benefit from it?

We also cannot assume that everyone is drawing from collective infrastructure investment just because we're all forced to pay into it. Some people use well water, have their own microgrid that is disconnected from the public one, and go out of their way to only utilize private toll roads, private medical services, etc for ethical reasons. Shouldn't we at least give people the freedom of choice to opt out of taking from the collective pool of resources if they do not need to, and in turn, because their utilization is lower, offer them some form of limited incentive to do so, as long as they are still paying in more than they're getting out of the system, ultimately?

Is it fair to give gifts to people who did not ask for them or want them, and then expect the same sacrifices in return from the recipients, regardless of whether not these public services are even utilized or necessary?

> Sure you can: move!

To where? Another country that also forces you to pay taxes? I'm sure there are places in the world where taxes don't exist, but if they were places worth living in, I'm sure way more people would be moving there.

> Or do you mean "you can't benefit from all of the security, infrastructure, and social investments in our country and not pay taxes to it?"

Nobody said anything about whether or not the benefits that result from taxation are worth it. Just that it's mandatory, which it effectively is for the vast majority of people.