Once again, you are not free to renounce it. If you wish to renounce it you must pay taxes to do so, if you do not pay those taxes you will be jailed. Why is this so hard to understand?

The social contract theory is an answer to the question of “why should I obey the State?”. It does not attempt to show why a State is needed or desirable. This theory surpassed the previous answer which was “I have a divine right to rule”. Both theories attempt to show why the State is legitimate, not that it is good or needed.

While technically true, it is not enforced. If you live in a state with sales tax, but you purchase something in a state without sales tax, you are also supposed to pay taxes to your home state on that item. Does anyone do it? No. Does the IRS care? No. If you leave the country and never come back, the IRS has no jurisdiction over you. So again, If you think taxes are theft, move to a country that doesn't have them.

You will not be jailed unless you return. The idea of paying to officially renounce your citizenship is for the government to recoup some of the costs it invested in you. Paying to renounce your citizenship frees you from future tax burdens. You only have to do it if you want to return to the US as a tourist. If you don't want to return, you don't have to pay.

You must be unaware of FATCA and extradition agreements. Just like a slave who runs away risks getting caught and brought back, if you go abroad and refuse to submit a 1040 (doesn’t even matter if you owe taxes) you risk being caught and brought back.

Once again, you are not free to leave, you are simply making justifications for the taxes levied on one who wishes to leave. The justification does not remove the fact that you are not free to leave.

You claimed your are free to leave, it is quite clear you are not and you admit this truth by attempting to justify the taxes required to leave.

Ne pilot

i dont see how pointing out that we used to have less oversight of industry and therefore less taxes and ****tier outcomes is a straw man. It’s at the heart of the issue.

food safety. You can make an argument for privatizing the FDA but there’s no good argument (IMO) for not having some type of independent organization keeping on eye on things. They have to be funded somehow.

again point out a society that has no form of taxes or government that’s better than what we have currently.

Regardless, you are free to leave society. You can start a commune. Just don’t drive on our roads, use our grid, our water supply system, call the cops, use the internet, cell towers...

im going to go out on a limb here and assume you are a professional pilot that makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. If our society is so burdensome you can afford the exit tax. The reason you can afford it is because our enlightened society provided a safe nest for you to safely learn to fly. You did not build it. You may have made an addition and for that we thank you, but most of the heavy lifting was done by others.

if you think you’re paying too much in taxes, write your congress person, vote, start a petition, whatever.

if you don’t want to pay any taxes than kindly GTFO

It is a non sequitur. The fact that we still have poor outcomes proves that the poor outcome does not come from low taxes or lack of oversight. The Jungle, since you mention Sinclair, includes government inspectors, and cites them as part of the problem. They were of course labelled as greedy. Either way, it was and is a work of fiction.

They can be funded privately. UL was formed without government funding. They test various products and are considered a gold standard by the people who risk to lose money if they fail (i.e. insurance companies). Both UL and insurance companies risk to lose money if they do a poor job. Insurance companies require those they insure to have their products tested by UL. The exact same can be done for food oversight.

A common misconception is that without government regulation their is no regulation, this is simply untrue and UL proves that. Not only do they do it, it provides a superior form of regulation. It is paid for by those being regulated (i.e. the producers of electronics, food, etc) and if a company like UL fails in its job, the company suffers the loss, there is no qualified immunity.

The FDA does not have the same vested interest as a company like UL (there are other companies that provide similar services), nor the same incentives to do a good job. Incentives matter, a government employee is not immune to incentives, and the consequences of failure are much less for a government employee or agency than a private company. In fact, as long as companies comply with government regulations there is not much that can be done should you be injured or hurt in some way. The regulation provides cover and reduces the liability of the company.

Government regulation provides a false sense of security. Once again, if a government oversight agency fails at its job what is the punishment? More money. There is no incentive to be good, if the agency does well it may even lose funding. That doesn't even get into the idea that an agency that doesn't use its full budget will likely have its budget cut the next year, which provides no incentive to be efficient.

The presence or lack thereof does not make it wrong or impossible. But, you once again are using society and state interchangeably, they are not the same things. A society may have various states and vice versa.

You are not free to leave. You can keep repeating the lie "you are free to leave" but that doesn't make it so.

Please tell us what the charges are, besides the plane ticket, to fly to your new private utopia island?

Let's follow this line of reasoning. Since you are here then you must fully support the current administration, the laws, the execution of the laws, etc. Otherwise you can leave. In fact, we should get rid of elections all together, because if you don't like how it is right now, then GTFO. Your philosophy of "don't like it leave" turns out not to be so good after all? Pretty much defeats the point of democracy.

Lastly, why should I be the one forced to leave? You are the one trying to impose on me, not the other way around. If you bought a new house, and after moving in you notice your neighbor dumping trash on your lawn, would you accept his response that this is how he has always done it and if you don't like it leave? I doubt it.

"Don't like it leave" is a lazy and intellectually weak argument.

You should educate yourself on FATCA, the requirement of citizens to pay income tax regardless of residence, and the costs associated with renouncing your citizenship. Those, by definition, make it so that you are not free to leave. They have all already been mentioned in this thread.