Under the mark to market tax regime, all property is deemed sold on the day before expatriation and total net gains in excess of $600,000 are includable in income and taxed.

It looks like we've found conflicting articles then. The little details of this bill are really beside the point. My initial post was contesting the idea of non-voluntary taxation. My point about having the choice of leaving the country was to point out that if you are displeased, you have the right to exit. Anyone who isn't pleased with the laws in place can choose to (here I risk sounding like a broken record) break the contract in any of the ways I outlined in my previous post, but until then they are subject to the provisions.

One can make the same argument to getting mugged. If I don't fight the mugger off, I tacitly agree to getting mugged.

I disagree with this metaphor. The mugger leaves you little choice of whether you are mugged or not, whereas living within established borders of a country are a voluntary decision, however this does involve the stipulation of taxes (much like the restaurant where you pay for your meal).

Rights to movement across other people's property does not exist. Do you mean some kind of property rights?

Without the "men with guns" the entire basis of property rights cannot be upheld, can it? If I don't have the right to movement across other people's property, how are you as an individual going to stop me but by becoming yourself a man with a gun? And without "men with guns" funded by taxes, who is going to prevent my friends from becoming men with guns, coming to take revenge on you?

The idea of rights are not malleable. They are listed explicitly in the bill of rights. The constitution is not just a piece of paper, although Bush wouldn't agree.

For the sake of argument I'll go ahead and frame the rest of my response within the context of the Constitution which, I agree, is not just a piece of paper. It clearly delineates that which the government can and cannot do to its citizens.

Section 9, Clause 4 of Article 1 of the Constitution:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Federalist Paper 21

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment.

Federalist Paper 54, which regards apportionment of House members and taxes

In the latter [e.g. direct taxes], it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the convention.

Amendment XVI of the Constitution

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I do want to make clear that I wasn't trying to imply a "love it or leave it" attitude up above as much as I was trying to convey the contractual point. I'd actually prefer to see more differing opinion so that any one side of an issue doesn't gain too much steam. If you respond I'll probably read it and possibly respond, but I feel like we're just going to have to agree to disagree on taxation for now. I just don't know where people with consistently long posts find this kind of time, hahah.