[edit: This post was originally hastily written and had overtones of legal advice, and has been edited substantially since then. If you're a defendant in a tax case, please don't try to present these arguments to a judge, I'd give about a 99% chance you'll lose the case. I study law as much as any layman but am not a lawyer. This post is now simply intended to illustrate the incompatibility of taxation with standards of justice throughout the rest of the legal system, and hopefully to be one tiny push towards a society that doesn't rely on taxation for public goods and services.]

Taxation is illegal. Plain and simple. The entire way the government funds itself is not legal under the government's own laws, rooted in thousands of years of legal tradition.

People have tried and failed to make this argument a billion times via arguments rooted in "United States" law. They claim that the 16th amendment was never ratified, they claim that it's contradicted by the 5th amendment, and all other manner of claims.

Unsuprisingly, courts reject these arguments over and over again - either the arguments are flawed, or the court is unwilling to admit their validity. Once in a blue moon, a defendant successfully maintains one of them argument, but it's more a matter of luck than skill.

But there is a contrast between what arguments judges will accept, and what arguments are ethically viable.

Taxation cases put courts and "attack attorneys" (also known as "prosecutors" or "claimants") into what is really a contradictory position - they are expected to uphold written law above that which is just or moral.

In reality, the absolute duty of not only court officers and public officials, but all human beings, is to uphold what is just above all else.

These may sound like abstract principles, but in fact, they are the entire basis of our legal system - a mish-mash of Anglo-Saxon common law principles, British law, and ancient Roman/Greek principles. Let's examine some of these principles, and see how they color the picture of taxation.

"Ex injuria jus non oritur" ("From injury, justice does not arise")

This is an incredibly clear principle. Justice and "net" (total) injury from an action are incompatible. if your action does more harm than good, it is not just, and thus, is not legal. Injury does not create law - the "correctionary" principle here is considered to be "ex factis jus oritor", "from facts, law arises." Notice the contrast of "injury" against "truth".

Is this true in cases of "taxation"? Yes. The individual impulses to, primarily, self-preservation and accomodation, and secondarily, compassion, have their monetary "fuel" deprived, which is then spent on acts of government - including mass murder, war, mass poisoning, subsidy and support of corporate crime, and aiding and abetting of fugitives. It is abundantly clear that taxation causes net harm on a population.

"Consensus facit legem" ("Consensus makes the law")

Taxation is not performed with a full consensus of the population - that is, with each individual consenting. If it were, no penalties would need to exist for nonpayment. The actual informed consent of the person being taxed does not exist, which is why the threat of confiscation of property, violence, and imprisonment is a necessary component of "taxation" - some individuals will claim to consent, but the vast majority would not behave accordingly if the coercive measures to obtain the taxes were lifted.

The individuals carrying out acts of "taxation" - more commonly known as "extortion", "fraud" and "racketeering" - attempt to claim that the presence of benefit enjoyed by the defendant is enough to obligate the defendant into payment. However, neither implicit or explicit consent is ever given by the taxation defendant for the performance of those services.

A homeless man with a "squeegee" cannot bind a motorist into paying him for wiping his windshield, nor can a pizza deliveryman randomly choose houses to give pizza to, and then obligate them to give payment. All forms of consent were absent, and therefore, no payment is required.

You could hypothetically make the case that, if the defendant actively enjoyed the benefits of the act, i.e., ate the pizza, or allowed the car to be scrubbed - then they would be obligated to give fair and reasonable payment - but this argument falls flat when applied to taxation. First, we do not actually enjoy benefits from the vast majority of government "services" at all, since so many of them cause direct injury, and second, almost all the fundamental government services we use - roads, highways, subway systems, buses - are paid for at point of service. Roads are usually paid for with gasoline taxes and tolls, and tolls are paid for subways and buses as well. Some of us do use the services of public schools (not advisable, but for most unavoidable), firefighters, and police (also not advisable). It would be ethical to pay for services that are just and that you are obligated to pay for - but the vast majority of other government services don't qualify under this definition. Again, that is why taxation takes the form of a mandate, and not a service in an open market. If they were things people would feel an ethical obligation to pay for, they would - we do underestimate the ethical potential of a free society.

"Suppressio veri" ("Suppression of the truth")

"Suppressio veri" is much the same as the crucial element of a fraud case, that a party to a contract may have relief against the contract if the other party suppressed information material to it.

Fully informed consent is the highest standard for consent - somebody who enters into an agreement must understand the consequences of his obligations in the agreement.

This is impossible with any arrangement involving the government. Huge portions of the government's spending, and actions, are beyond review or public availability, as encoded by the government's own self-regulations (confidentiality arrangements). It is impossible for fully informed consent to exist under present circumstances.

"Se defendendo" ("Self defense")

In Wikipedia's terms - "The act of defending one's own person or property, or the well-being or property of another". A case of armed robbery, generally, where the homeowner defended themselves against an intruder, would not see them prosecuted for defense of self or property, under current law. And yet the same acts of a home invader, undertaken by the government, produce a completely different outcome. The legal defense is nullified. This fundamental principle of law is disregarded to make things more convenient for government behavior.

"Respondeat superior" ("Let the master answer")

Similarly to the "se defendendo" principle, we see by this principle that actions by the individual employees of a company should see liability for those actions resolve onto the employer. A repairman's damage-causing negligence in performing some job may trace back to his employer, making them liable.

Contrast this with acts of taxation, civil asset forfeiture, extralegal theft by police, and more. The government is given special exemption for criminal acts - coordinated extortion, very public conspiracy to leverage threats to extort money from hundreds of millions of people, are not even regarded as giving someone standing to sue. What recourse do citizens have? The individual agents are not liable for their actions, because they're acting "under color of law", and yet the government is not considered to be liable either, because the court defaults to evaluating the questions not in terms of criminal law, but in terms of "Constitutionality".

"Salus populi suprema lex esto" ("The good of the people shall be the supreme law")

Simply put - is the good of the people reflected in the act of taxation? Is theft of a third of $50,000/yr in income in order to pay for military expenses and shady "safety net" programs morally justifiable? The government so often invokes the name of charity to justify taxation, but then taxes the poor - not solely to act on their behalf, but to invade, conquer, and destroy.

The ethicality of taxation is debated endlessly, but I think anyone who has simply looked at it, at face value, can see how ridiculous the concept is.

"Quantum meruit" ("As much as he/she has earned")

In the absence of a contract, someone performing a service may be compensated on the principle of fairness, when one party would otherwise receive "unjust enrichment", a net benefit from a service performed by another. As described above, this is a negative amount - the government has provably caused more injury than benefit.

"Non faciat malum, ut inde veniat bonum" ("Not to do evil that good may come")

This one is absolutely essential. it literally means that an illegal act - extortion in the name of taxation - is not legally justifiable by a supposedly good outcome).

In plain terms, that indicates taxation is illegal.

"Nemo judex in sua causa" ("No one shall be a judge in his own case")

A judge on the public payroll cannot legally adjudicate a case regarding the method by which he/she is paid, and should self-recuse.

A taxation case itself, therefore, cannot legally occur in a court funded by the proceeds of that same taxation.

The problem here is extremely fundamental. Although prosecutors and others would prefer taxation be described as a matter of "public interest", the reality is closer to the other end of the spectrum - a dictator ordering confiscations of property and paying people to give the illusion of legal justification for such confiscations.

"Mens rea" ("Guilty mind")

A "guilty mind" must be demonstrated for a legally actionable crime to be committed - more plainly, "criminal intent". A taxation defendant who acted to withhold funds from criminal purposes in pursuit of more honorable purposes for those funds cannot be demonstrated to be of guilty mind. Should we be prosecuting those who would withhold money from the government and instead use it to help the impoverished or disabled?

"Malum in se" ("Wrong in itself")

This legal principle, among others previously discussed, means that justice takes precedence over a system of laws. This relates to the notion of "lex naturalis" vs. "lex humana" - things that are inherently right or wrong, vs. Things that are simply claimed to be so by a system of law. Here we see another ancient hint of the inextricable ties between the concepts of law and actual ethical justice - that an act of law should promote an ethical outcome, and hence, that an act of taxation must be ethically justifiable.

"Male fide" ("Bad faith")

The party seeking legal action in favor of taxation - the "government" - demonstrates bad faith, by compounding blackmail and threats with personal distress and possible injury of person or property caused to the defendant in the taxation case. The entire basis of all judgments that would be likely consequences of the case would be in bad faith, and thus, unjust/illegal.

"Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur" ("The laws of man are born, live, and die")

This principle simply states that laws are human and not absolute - this has been understood since time immemorial. Written law (lex scripta/lex humana) are simply words, which may, or may not, be compatible with a just outcome.

"Ius"/"jus" ("That which is binding")

The law is justice. That which is unjust is not law.

See the etymology for the word "just". Justice is that which is right. "Ius"/"Jus", synonymous with "upright", "righteous", "true".

It's when injustice takes the form of "law", and the "enforcers of law" conspire to make injustice a reality, that society collapses.

Society works fine and provides more than enough for everybody without people creating injustice - "government" and the "taxation" that supports it can only be described as a kind of mass idiocy, a reliance on extortion to maintain order instead of the free actions of individuals.

This article outlined some fundamental conflicts in the legal reasoning behind "taxation". Hopefully it will help provide some insight to someone interested in how something as unjust as taxation became law.