Comment: Ok. I'm not supper constitution savvy but,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Please elaborate on your (see in situ)

Ok. I'm not supper constitution savvy but,

I think fairly good restrictions were applied to the constitution to limit the ability of the government to raise revenue or buy stuff in the hopes that it wouldn't get out of hand. 2/3rds majorities, presidential approval, and separations of powers. Basically it was set up so that it would take considerable collusion before moneys could get relocated for anything that didn't have tremendous support. (article1, section 7). But, congress has the power to collect taxes. It was meant to be a limitation on the federal government, but where is the limitation on congress? A legal means to take wealth creates an atmosphere that favors collusion, even if a large majority of separate bodies have to fall in line, there's no rebuke from the people. Worst than that, once these cooperative and exploitative channels are open, then they can self fund their re-elections and enrich the system with more people willing to operate in the same fashion. So, I think you have to be able to withdraw funds completely. The involuntary nature of paying for services that you don't want, or that actually act against you, seems like the best way to curtail a system that ultimately just uses you as livestock on their tax farm. If a program or service isn't good or effective enough to raise voluntary support on its own, it is unlikely that it could genuinely be a net benefit for everyone, particularly if it requires force to get it done. So, even if there was good intent, involuntary taxation will tend towards over taxation and too big of a margin for using those exploits for bad.