Ron Paul was considered a radical for supporting an end to the Personal Income Tax- However, isn't the growth of government and the elimination of our rights reason enough to end it?

Yes, one would think so. Yet, within this realm of justification we see utilitarian arguments.

For comparisson, see: https://www.nederlandrechtsstaat.nl/grondwet/inleiding-hoofdstuk-5-wetgeving-en-bestuur/artikel-104-belastingheffing/

We find the necessity of seeking the consent of delegates of the people for the imposition of taxes already formulated in the Magna Carta of 1215.3 This precept resulted from the medieval views that the sovereign, acting as protector of his subjects, was entitled to the support of the protected in the form of a monetary contribution. The sovereign then asked the assembled ranks for a one-time contribution called a begging. 'This request could then be negotiated, whereby demands could be made by the delegates as to the method of levying and the nature of the expenditure of the funds granted. Other demands not directly related to the proposed taxes could also be formulated in the form of petitions. Assent to these demands, over time, led to control of the states over legislation. Subsequently, at a later stage, the imposed burdens would be divided equally among the territories, and this in turn later led to a development from political fragmentation to the creation of the modern unitary state.4 Thus, to quote Meijers5 , supplication stands at the origin of democracy.[...]

[..]The principle of legality is very important here since taxes can be considered a violation of property rights.[..]

So, what is the utilitarian argument? Under the threat of violence, based on the idea: by the grace of God, money is needed. As long as it is contained within a law = contract and that law has been agreed upon by the Sovereign and the representatives of the subjects, then all is well.

Point is that these taxes were limited in nature due to the agricultural nature of society back then. A rise of 1% was a direct and existential threat. Produce had to be divided between seed for the next year, feeding a population, regeneration of the population, defense and improvement of society. Public works were difficult to envision due to the nature of the economical system.

With the advent of fiat currency, this changed. Now the Sovereign could create a medium of exchange, demand to be paid taxes in that medium, which creates an artificial demand, and thus value, and slowly but surely, the sovereign could take by other means a larger portion of the wealth created by the production of the subjects.

There is a moral argument here: that of a social nature. Not willing to pay taxes is seemingly indicative of anti-social behavior.

Note here also, that protection is paid for.

Except, what this article fails to mention, is that the Dutch revolt was enhanced not by the issue of taxes per sé, but the general notion that ancient rights and privileges were violated by the Sovereign.

In other words, in international law, or even the rights of man, there is a point were taxes demanded become an existential threat. But however one looks at it, protection rackets always assume, that protection is something to be given by a third party: in this case the sovereign.

Freedom pre-supposes a state of autarkism, both on the personal level and on the community level, so from the ground up. Working together is key. But who are working together? And on what basis? It is based on the free exchange of goods and services, where each free man is responsible for security.

During the 17th century, the Dutch noted that there was a difference between a period with and without a high born lord on the international level. Why? Because those high born simply would not want to deal with commoners. The only thing that would force them to do so was: power.

This is exemplified in 1672, when King Charles II of England, King Louis XIV of France and the Bishop of Münster in secret agreed to invade the Dutch Republic to rob it blind. They needed money in the first place, to pay of their debts, and extinguish their debts, due to their lavish lifestyles. Basically, for not living within their means. Of course, they failed, but is was by the skin of their the Dutch teeth.

Subsequent years have shown that there are advantages to having the high born in place to represent the state, as it can prevent war on the one hand, but also there is a risk. To be drawn into war due to international agreements. This then created a league of neutral countries, heavily weaponized.

In the end analysis, taxes are basically a protection racket, disguised as an agreement between the one with the guns and the one without/less powerful. It is a pay-off based on an economical decision.

The problem is, that representatives cannot convey a right which they do not have. That is why representatives are chosen without legal limits. The only thing that would potentially limit a representative is a framework that limits their rights to make a law.

Congress shall make no law [..] and the first amendment to the Constitution lists 6 rights which cannot and shall not be impinged upon.

the 2nd amendment says: shall not be infringed. Meaning, it shall not be put into a confined space. Hence, that right is unlimited.

Yet, here again, we see utilitarian and even illogical and emotional arguments being leveled to broach the subject and transgress against the limits the Constitution says cannot be done.

The only way they can is through the levy of taxes.

The question is whether a representative should be able to bind his principals to a law which has not been agreed upon prior to that law, and that undermines the absolute right to property.

According to the Constitution, such things should be possible IF they conform to certain rules.

So, what may have been, in the past, words to describe limits that were workable, when changing the system of economical exchange, these words may become meaningless.

A standing army is dangerous to freedom. More dangerous is debt and the to debt connected usury.

Another thing to consider is that taxing the produce of labor and business requires a shift in thinking. When a town renders a service by organizing a market, and in order to conduct business on that market, a price is being exacted from the participants i.e. the sellers, that is one thing. It is dependent upon the choice of the individual, going into contract at that particular time and place.

In stead, now, we see that in order to be a laborer or even a seller, the market place has been extended beyond a confined small place in time and space. Now that market is abstract, 24/7/365 within the confines of a territorial idea spanning vast regions. From just a couple of meters to thousands of miles.

This means, there no longer is a choice, and hence, no longer freedom. And it not only encompasses the vendors, but also the buyers.

Currently, there is less and less considered tax-free. It creeps into everything. And not satisfied with what is already there, the evil elites want to go further. Taxing the very fact you exist.

In the "Oera-Linda bok", an amusing story is rendered about a man approaching the honorable mother for help because his house was destroyed. It turned out he had build that house by himself, next to a river, in so called hamrik-land, that is overflow land. And he did not build his house on a noll or terp. When asked why that was, the man responded he did not want to solicit the help of others because then he would be obliged to help as well. He was considered avaricious. And consequently, left to his own devices.

this story teaches that there is always a subtle relationship between individual freedom/autarkism and strength in numbers. The book itself reads like a story on how freedom was lost. Comparing it to today, the same ingredients can be found. But it also recounts ho it can be regained and re-instituted. Each and everyone of us is responsible for himself and towards his community to keep freedom around and not let it slip. (note that it puts on the stage the children of Frya ( free) the children of Finda ( loving the law, instituting many micromanaging laws, but breaking them just the same) and Lydas (no law at all, untrustworthy degenerate people). IT could be questioned whether these were actual people, or just a generic label for people living in a certain manner, an allegory?

As long as the forces of slavery are exerting a stronger force than those of freedom, slavery-laws remain enforced. Once it becomes not enforceable, that law is strikken from the books. To enforce slavery has become very advantageous and cheap. Once that turns around, and it becomes disadvantageous and expensive, the process of liberation sets in.

Hence, life and freedom are not separate but connected in such a way, that they are one and the same. It is incumbent on us to feel that on an existential level.

The Dutch "Act of Abjuration" of 1581 says: "to protect our natural freedom" is done with "heart and soul".