However, my point still remains. I find it a weak analogy to compare one's identity as an American to picking something off the shelf at Wal-Mart. I do not consider being an American simply a "good or service" that the government provides.
I have not been "conned" into anything: While the tax structure and the governmental largesse in this country are presently deplorable (and unfortunately getting worse), and the government has no business trying to be an economic "equalizer", I see no reason that those who are able to become rich under America's protection should not be willing to offer in proportion for its protection and preservation. If that does not make me a true "conservative" in your estimate, then so be it.
[I interpreted that as a rhetorical question with the implicit assertion that “freedom has no price”.]
I guess it is a difference between what those freedoms actually COST the government to provide and what they are WORTH to the individual. I interpreted your view as: Both a rich man and a poor man would pay everything they have to avoid slavery, therefor freedom is WORTH different amounts to each person. The same is true of extortion, however. If we want to believe that a good government is one that is not an extortionist, then I think we have to take the view that it merely tries to recoup its COSTS rather than assay what it is WORTH to each individual. Since the law and the armed forces are supposed to protect everyone equally, I assign the cost equally.
[I do not consider being an American simply a “good or service” that the government provides.]
We seem to be talking past each other. It is not simply “being” an American that is the good or service, but the protections and freedoms which cost the government money to provide.