RE: Outcomes don't morally justify immoral actions.
I definitely do NOT want you dead. Disagreement is healthy if done in a constructive way. It can educate all parties and enlighten situations for better opinions all round. The result is a stronger community. So I am glad you are here and expressing your perspectives!
I don't see comparisons as 'evil'. If you disagree with the validity of the comparison, then lets talk about why you feel that is the case. Perhaps provide an alternative comparison and explain why the factors which comprise it are better.
Back to choices. When we make a choice, there are usually conditions. If you purchase a ticket to see a movie, there are rules. You cannot run up and down the isles naked and screaming during the movie. It is not allowed. There are rules and consequences. If you don't like those rules, then don't buy the ticket (or find a theater which allows it). Same with choosing which country and government to live under (the rules which are defined).
For example, you may want to live in Singapore (a beautiful city by the way) but they do not allow chewing gum. If you absolutely want to chew gum everyday in public, it would probably not be a good choice for you.
Taxes are part of the conditions for citizens under all major governments. So is other agreements like not committing crimes against people (assault, battery, homicide, etc.). It is just part of the agreement package. For those who break the rules there are consequences.
So if I refuse to pay, you'll be opposed to individuals calling themselves "government" using force against me to expropriate my property or throw me in a cage?
How do you reconcile "I don't want you dead" with "for those who break the rules there are consequences"? Do you even have any evidence that these so-called "rules" apply to anyone? If so, what? What facts or evidence did you rely on when determining that rules apply to people because of physical location?
"How do you reconcile "I don't want you dead" with "for those who break the rules there are consequences"?"
The legal system has a number of consequences for those who break laws. It might be a fine (ex. speeding ticket), a warning (ex. perhaps for smoking near a grade school), it could be incarceration (ex. unjustified assault-battery), restitution (ex. paying someone for their window you broke while playing baseball), and could be execution depending upon the state (usually for premeditated homicide). For criminal acts, please remember it can be a jury of peers, not 'government' who decide your guilt (the option is up to the accused). This is our system. We created it because we didn't like the colonial system of England. So we (the people) created a new one and also defined the 3 branches of government to run our country.
To validate justification of the U.S. Government, we would need to discuss the history of our national origins, dating back to before the Revolutionary war. We became a self governing body, which the King of England really didn't like. Borders were defined by our self-governing representative bodies and neighboring countries. The rest is, as they say, history. Kind of a unique history . But self-governance, via deciding the structure and voting for leaders, is not entirely unique. The ancient Greeks, well some of the city states, did something similar.
The concept of rules based on location is part of our daily lives. When you walk into a church, are the rules different than at the 50 yard line of a football game? How about in an airport versus a shooting range? Do you establish rules for guests of your house (take your shoes off, no cursing in front of the kids, no food fights, etc?). So there are many precedents we all embrace. Same for borders of countries. Each can set their own rules. You choose to cross the border, you are subject to those rules.
i am glad you don't want me dead. you can no longer vote and you can no longer call taxation anything other than theft. if you support taxation you want me dead.