If you don't like the previous (perfectly valid) example, how about one that doesn't involve violence on the part of the perpetrator? Perhaps theft, or public nudity.
The point is that everything a state does is ultimately based on force. The whole point of preventing tyranny of the majority is to ensure that the only actions are taken are taken for the good of everyone, rather than a specific sect. It has nothing to do with denying the legitimacy of taxation.
It seems to me you don't understand the basic concept of a constitutional state. Reread On Liberty and Federalist #10.
"Who exactly do you think you're talking to if not someone who disagrees with that sentiment?"
I was pointing out exactly how far outside the terms of legitimate debate you actually are.
Now the thread is over.
It's the exact opposite. A constitutional republic maintains that holding the majority opinion does not justify force.
If you don't understand this, you don't understand anything about the US.
Your examples are ridiculous. Stopping violence is not violence.
"Pretty much everyone on either side of the left-ride divide agrees about the need for the modern welfare state, even if they disagree about the extent"
You really don't know anything about this, do you? Who exactly do you think you're talking to if not someone who disagrees with that sentiment?
This thread is over.