The Government is tyrannical

Since I cannot demonstrate evidence of absence, then it cannot be shown that taxation is invalid, it is only a supposition that has been made. To show that taxation is invalid, I might choose to find evidence that only payments which are not taxation are valid. So if it can be shown that payments which have not been coerced are preferable, then we have, at the same time, shown that taxation is invalid, otherwise there would be a contradiction.

For example, if it is shown that the moon is made of cheese then we have falsified all other claims that it might be made of something else.

So we ask not what defines and constitutes a crime, but instead what describes a valid and worthy behaviour. It is certainly preferable that we allow our counterpart to refuse our participation in any activity, but can it be shown that to do so is (objectively?) good? If morals exist can we show (demonstrate) that we are doing good if we engage in activity which allows others to refuse? That type of activity would certainly not be harmful...

To make yourself happy is good, can we say? Do what you want is good?

We should maximise our pleasure by reducing our displeasure and engaging in things that we like. We can derive significant pleasure by seeking out and solving crimes.

Does the person who collects taxes enjoy their occupation, does the bailiff enjoy doing that job, even if they do it might still be a crime...

If we want something we should do what we can to get it, if we want, even trading within a market, so long as we do not hurt others. If we want something we should be able to get it. People should be able to trade, work without being taxed. People should be able to get what they want, if they can do so without being the cause of harm. People should be left alone. The Government should leave innocent people alone.