No man has the right to take another man’s property or money, not as a citizen, nor as a government official. Men in govt. have neither more, nor greater, rights than they would have as citizens. Nor do citizens, as a whole, or as a majority of the whole, have the right to bestow a right of taxation upon their govt. For there does not exist a right of taking—by anyone, from anyone. When some citizen says that he agrees with taxation, that he voted to give the govt. the right to tax, he is wrong. You cannot give a right. By your nature as a man either you have a right or you do not have it.
Is govt., by its nature, a type of entity which is greater, more important than, an individual man? How can it be, since it is composed of individual men? When a man becomes a govt. official does he become more honest, more noble, more rational, taller, stronger, possessed of greater integrity—a superior man—than when he was _only_ a citizen? Does the title “official” stamp the mark of God upon his forehead, and does the designation “citizen” brand “low-life” on the neck of John Q. Citizen? Are we back to the state of King and subject, merely substituting the words “official” and “citizen”?
To the above the average man will answer, But if govt. has not the power to tax where will come the money it needs to do what it has to do? To that may be answered, you can never get to a solution to that question if you persist in thinking that there is such a thing as “a right to take other people’s money.”
“It is wrong to take what doesn’t belong to you”—that common sense, parental guide to children holds true through all of life, and you cannot prove otherwise. You must first get that through your thick head, and stop regarding govt. as some kind of superior being. If you can’t come to the truth of that, you will be closed to any idea of a free, voluntary society