However, the thesis I am making here is that the Constituion--and those who wrote it, approved it and voted it into effect had and have no moral right to impose taxes on me as a condition for living on my own property.
The Constitution is a bequest established by one generation in its capacity of sovereign authority passed on to its Posterity in the form of a trust.
The bequest of a trust theory does not condition the payment of taxes for living on your property or any where else for that matter, nor receipt of any benefit beyond mere access to it provisions of protection.
Payment of taxes is a pure obligation of the status as a beneficiary of the trust to adhere to its provisions and support its existence through a financial participation.
You may renounce your status giving up access to its provisions of protection on your own unilateral decision at any time.
The bequest of a trust theory does not condition the payment of taxes for living on your property or any where else for that matter, nor receipt of any benefit beyond mere access to it provisions of protection.
Payment of taxes is a pure obligation of the status as a beneficiary of the trust to adhere to its provisions and support its existence through a financial participation.
You may renounce your status giving up access to its provisions of protection on your own unilateral decision at any time.
Well, I see you think you've found a novel argument. You haven't. I predict that the argument will go back and forth over this issue, though.
If someone wants to give me a gift, that is their right. And I have the right to either accept the gift, or to reject it. The same is true with respect to a debt (a negative gift, so to speak).
A trust is a valid example of the sort of gift that a parent may give to his or her children, or to all his or her heirs in perpetuity. The giver of such a trust has the right to set the conditions under which the heirs may make withdrawals from the trust--and those conditions may rightfully include fees that must be paid in order to withraw from the trust, or interest that must be paid on funds borrowed from the trust, or an equity interest that must be granted in the enterprises into which funds obtained from the trust may be invested. So far, your analogy holds up well.
But what if the person who set up the trust had no right to do so, or had no right to give what the trust documents say are the property of the trust? This is where I think we will differ.
We can clarify the situation if we go back in time to 1789, thus removing the issue of heirs entirely. For if what the Constitution purports to do be not moral in 1789, then it is not moral now, and talk of trusts and heirs is moot and non-sequitur.
By what right did a supermajority of citizens in 1789 give themselves the power to tax everyone who might ever be under the power of the US Government? I have no right to tax whomever I choose, so I cannot grant this right to others. And if I have not this right, and you have not this right, where did the voters in 1789 get this right, so that they could grant it to Congress in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution?
I assert they had not the power to grant this right to Congress, because they didn't have any such right themselves. Back to you.