prescient

While making detailed plans to enact taxation is not making plans for theft at gun point it would necessarily be theft by legislative fiat. Non-compliance with this would get the attention of authorities specifically law enforcement, who does have guns. See the case of Edward and Elaine Brown. In a society of competing and conflicting interests, it would be nearly impossible to get a consensus on taxation based on a democratic process. While taxation is a way for the state to raise revenue it is not the way. Government regularly levies fees for the services it provides. This is a point of sale relationship and not a confiscatory practice which is practiced by governemnt at all levels. This argument naturally leads to a VAT tax which would be levied on ALL consumers at the point of purchase based on a consumers choice to buy a product or service.

Taxation at a level agreeable to the governed is appropriate, that is, moral and ethical The level of taxation is related to the cost of government. The cost of government is related to the tasks it performs. The tasks government performs is based on what the population expects of it. The more we (the governed) expect of government, the more it costs and therefore the higher the level of taxation and by extension the cost of living. As soon as this circle closes it becomes a spiral. The circle starts with our expectations and the morality in our expectations and our expectations of others. If we are immoral in our expectations then it follows our government is immoral in its actions.

I think people do not accept objectivism because it requires people to make black and white distinctions. This means one must take a stand and defend their principles and beliefs. This assumes an individual holds principles and beliefs worth defending. Where objectivism would be based on reason and logic, its opposite subjectivism would be based on feeling and emotion. A psychology which has in preceding decades permeated our culture. People have been conditioned to think that yes or no, up or down and left or right decisions are somehow an infringement. As such, that gray area of ambivalence and ambiguity which subjectivism inhabits has been expanded to push the black or white choices to the fringes of thought. In this manner, one can mentally wander around in the intellectual landscape without making choices where everything is right, nothing is wrong OR there is no right or wrong, only shades of gray. I think this outlook also stems from an attitude that people hold where they do not want to be judgmental; they do not want to be thought a hypocrite. This indecision has the affect of more individuals not making substantive choices and in the bargain has led to a situation where others take on the role of decision maker. In essence, out of the contrived fear of having to stand on principle, people have outsourced their power to choose to others. "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton

I think the first flaw in this argument is that revenue generation is a necessity which ought to be maintained then expanded wherever and whenever possible. The level of revenue into government is an outcome of what government has been incorrectly charged to do. As a population, we display an ignorance of governance and see instead the state as a caretaker. We submit to onerous taxation and assume a commensurate level of service is an outcome of that income we allow to be confiscated. This has in nearly a century been proven wrong. And has been proven wrong in repeated attempts to make the model work. We do not get a dollars' worth of governance for every dollar in taxation. The good ol' USA does not need a new constitution and needs a population which understands the Constitution we have in addition to the principles on which it is anchored. Given the proclivities of the ruling class which inhabit the state today, any new Constitution would read like the tax code. A voluminous collection of obtuse and contradictory edits and rulings which would only necessitate an expanded state to interpret and carry out its instructions.

The first flaw I see ideology is that the "the state has the right to tax you for your rent on the land." The state does not have rights. Man has rights, as endowed by our creator. What the state can and cannot do is determined by we who consent to be governed. This sounds like a novel idea akin to New Coke or the Pet Rock.

One cannot objectively answer a subjective question. Happiness is a relative assessment of your current circumstances. Since subjective thought is too often based on the shifting sands of emotion and feelings, such an answer is subject to change in reaction to new circumstances. Worth is a subjective assessment which depends upon your decisions on what is relevant what is not. But, you have in part posed some solutions in your missive. What you do and who you do it with has a bearing on what makes it worth doing.