The major disagreement between political factions is how much to tax, who to tax and what to spend the money on, but never about taxation itself.
Oh so basically you've bounded the debate? Are you being paid for your time spend propagandizing? By the way, it is in the best interest of the state (undoubtedly the most powerful entity in the US) to make everyone think that the only options are different flavours of itself.
Regardless, you have to explain what "lawful" means. I don't care about legal this and changed-the-constitution-100-years-ago-now-its-lawful. Because morally, there's no difference between taxation and thieft-at-gunpoint-threatened-with-kidnapping. Other than 400 years ago, we did it with swords and gallows and dungeons and now we've made it a bit cleaner. Morally, the difference between a "noble" passing a law that he can rape your wife on the first night of your marriage and then take your money for the rest of your life, is exactly the same as changing the US constitution to allow the state to tax in like manner.
Please reply. With a MORAL argument. Not a legal one. Do you really think that I could take you back in time before The State (blessed be thy name) made stealing wrong (but not the legal kind) and killing wrong (but, again, not the legal kind) and the shoot you in the head, just because it was not legally wrong? Is there no room in this world for morals? Are you saying that if you took your family sailing, and happened to get blown to an island outside of the US EEC zone, that anyone who found you could just steal, rape, kill at will? Because, in your opinion, it's not "legally" wrong? The only problem I have with statists is that I've never met one with a moral compass, and that's sad