Many (not only) economic and political disputes are based on a misunderstanding of one thing - for whom is the state here and for whom are we here?
Is there a state for me, or am I here for the state? A state without citizens is losing its meaning. A stateless citizen is not a citizen, but he still exists - as a human being. Without citizens, politicians and the government apparatus have nothing to decide, because they should not stand. So the answer is simple - the state is here for us. It is not that "we are here for the state," but "the state is here for us."
If we agree on this basic simple basis, we can continue.
If there is a state for us - it is here our property for the state, or is there a state for our property? According to the above principle, the answer is simple - the state is here for our property.
So if there is a state for our property, does the state have the right to restrict us in our property? The answer is simple again - certainly not. If it were the other way around, it would be the same as if the company had the right to direct the customer to direct what he must or must not buy, and this is, of course, absurd.
However, if the state does not have the right to restrict us in our possession, the state has the right to collect taxes? The answer is simple - no.
You can, of course, argue that we pay state services in taxes. Those services thanks to which the state exists, thanks to which there is a "state for us".
However, taxes are a forced payment. Each of us is willing to pay a maximum of a certain tax. What does it mean? For example, not everyone wants to pay the taxes they set today. Some may want to pay more taxes, others may want to pay lower taxes. Well, since someone doesn't want to pay any taxes, the enforced tax is always unjustified and it must be protected by violence so that even those who do not want to do so can pay for it.
However, violence is a limitation of our property. Violence is murder - the restriction of the "ownership" of our lives, violence is theft - the restriction of the "ownership" of our property. Of course, we would then find many more examples, but let us return to the substance of the matter - violence by the state to enforce the payment of taxes turns the whole principle upside down. Due to state violence, the practice is such that we are here for the state. But that's not the way it should be!
For a "tax" to be justified, it would have to be voluntary. The state would become a classic offerer on the market, which would have to be oriented according to the requirements of customers - us. But who among you would voluntarily pay taxes today at the level they set today?
If you answer "I definitely don't" to the previous question, it means one interesting thing - our state gives too little for too much. It means that the state is inefficient - Probably less effective than you.
So if the state has no right to ask you to pay taxes, does the state have the right to force you to have an identity card? Does it have the right to force you to pay "health insurance"? Does it have the right to force you to pay "social insurance"? Of course he doesn't.
On the other hand - does the state have the right to pay for someone else's education with your money? Does he have the right to pay for foreign protection? Does he have the right to subsidize another's business? Does he have the right to regulate someone else's business? He has the right…
He doesn't. He does not have the right to collect taxes from you, so he does not have the right to dispose of your money in any way. The thief will remain a thief, let him do the best thing with money.