But income tax law does not distinguish trades based on contracts not enforceable by the government from those based on contracts that are, so even by this contrived standard of what constitutes private trade, income tax law violates human rights.
>And of course we have the power to force people to give up their privacy and divulge details about private interactions: we do it all the time in the context of child pornography, for instance.
We do not do it all the time in the context of child pornography. We only require someone to surrender their privacy rights if there is evidence they have traded child pornography.
Income tax law requires everyone to surrender their privacy rights. Moreover, it requires that those who refuse to surrender the privacy or property rights and comply to be imprisoned.
>As individual human beings, we recognize that privacy (and personal liberty) are important values. But they are not absolutes, and we strive to balance them against our other interests, such as our health and happiness.
We do not need to violate other people's human rights to be healthy and happy, and in any case, this would not be a justification for doing so.
>It might seem unfair that we don't get to choose at birth whether we want to live in modern society, where taxes are mandatory, or in a state of nature, where we are free of the terrible burden of taxation (and also free of any chance to amass a fortune, beyond a particularly large pile of coconuts).
The alternative to human rights violating taxes like those on income is not an absence of law and civilization. Governments can exist and raise revenue without taxing sales or income.
I tend to agree with you that the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" nature of our income tax system runs contrary to our national values. But that's just a matter of reform, not repeal.
You're simply wrong that we don't need to curtail people's rights to be healthy and happy. If my neighbor pollutes my groundwater with his "private" activity, his privacy is going to have to be violated and his freedom to continue to pursue his business or hobby will have to be compromised. If government doesn't have the power to do so, I'll take matters into my own hands, and again we're back to a state of nature.
And of course we have the power to force people to give up their privacy and divulge details about private interactions: we do it all the time in the context of child pornography, for instance. As individual human beings, we recognize that privacy (and personal liberty) are important values. But they are not absolutes, and we strive to balance them against our other interests, such as our health and happiness. A democratic government is the means that we use to distribute the responsibility for striking the balance.
It might seem unfair that we don't get to choose at birth whether we want to live in modern society, where taxes are mandatory, or in a state of nature, where we are free of the terrible burden of taxation (and also free of any chance to amass a fortune, beyond a particularly large pile of coconuts). But there are many things we don't get to choose when we are born. Such is life.