If ultimate enforcement through violence is the only determinant of whether or not something is a crime, then the very laws that dissuade other crime, say the robbery or theft that you refer to, are themselves blackmail, extortion or some other variation of violent crime.

This circular reasoning does not hold up to scrutiny, which is why it is almost only used in respect of taxation in libertarian circles and nowhere else.

No, because in these cases it's violence enacted in self-defense (often by proxy), and therefore not an aggression.

Defending yourself is not aggression. Going after somebody or their property is.

The use of coercive force is justifiable by the state or it isn't. If you now create justifications for why the use of violence in pursuit of self defense is valid, then you've conceded that the use of violence can be justified.

Which then means the "it's enforced by violence, and all these rationalizations don't matter as you don't have any choice anyway" no longer holds.

There are justifications for the use of violence, therefore we need some ulterior basis other than ultimate enforcement being premised upon the use of state violence in order to explain why 1) taxation is a crime, and further more that 2) that crime morally must be avoided.

You point towards the idea that Taxation is not a transaction you enter voluntarily, but the same can be said of your aggression theory; I didn't consent to any NAP with you, and the NAP is ultimately enforced by violence. I have no desire to abide by the NAP when it doesn't suit me as I never agreed to it.

Ultimately, whether it's the NAP, property rights or taxation, enforcement of pro-social behavior will require some scope, authority or justification which addresses more than just a single individual's consent. "I don't like taxes" is not sufficient an argument to state that you are morally obliged to commit tax evasion.

>tax evasion is simply a moral obligation for everyone who believes that people should not be subject to violence.

Some people should definitely be subjected to violence. It's not hard to find examples where violence is justified. Even a Buddhist monk will forcefully stop a child from touching a venomous snake and make the child cry.

You don't enter life voluntarily, you don't go to school voluntarily, you don't go to the hospital voluntarily when you fell on your head, become unconscious and slowly bleed out...

I know the US defense complex gets a lot of sh!t for its massive expenditure, but the hard reality is that no state on earth is going to invade the US, and thus threaten its citizens within the boarder, which is a result of tax money being spent on building the most powerful military in the world.

Perhaps, but less so than money. People wouldn't recognise other people as having millions or billions of wealth unless that was enforced through the violence of state capitalism, and a legal system protecting banks, creating cops and prisons.

Why would they? Millionaires aren't a natural concept; it's something our society allows.

So what? Does it mean that it's something not valuable or desirable? I don't think so.

Mainly, however, I am pointing out how absurdly reductionist it is for you to say “taxation is violence”. As you say, social constructs—taxation perhaps—can be “valuable or desirable”.