This is fairly off topic, but I'm just curious about where you're coming from here.

Would your point of "2. Taxation is extortion." change if the penalty for failing to pay were different? Say forcible deportation? This is purely hypothetical, so I have no idea where one would be deported to, but there would be no imprisonment, if you don't want to pay you'd be dropped off at the border, free to start your own micronation or whatever.

I also consider a second hypothetical scenario, no "government" (as we traditionally understand it), just a commune that you're born into, everyone produces food, goods and services for each other, while using certain communal facilities and resources. All members participate with the understanding that a portion of their labor each month must go to maintain those communal facilities, otherwise they will no longer be welcome to engage with the other members. Would you consider that labor an immoral tax?

To me, the simple logic of, "1. Extortion is immoral. 2. Taxation is extortion. 3. Taxation is immoral." short circuits some of the logic behind what allows communities of humans function. The maxim "No taxation without representation," captures the gist of what I find immoral about taxation much better. If you are (truly) represented at the decision-making table, to me, that makes taxation less of a "forced extortion" and more of an agreement among peers. Now of course, when we consider our current situation with the US Federal government, it strains credulity to say that 99% of us plebeians have our interests represented at the political table. Furthermore, talking specifically about the Deep State here, I think it makes it even more apparent that we have taxation without actual representation, and there are only a tiny fraction of particularly wealthy and powerful individuals who have decision-making power. The premise that America has turned into an oligarchy is not exactly a new idea.

I think you still have a point, but it's undermined by such simplicity. People are social creatures and I think most individuals understand that contributions to the community, as a whole, do not seem immoral if they are made with representation and consent. It's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric, "The State is evil! Individual autonomy is paramount in all circumstances!" but personally, I reject that notion; collectivism is both important for the progress of our species, and does not necessitate an "immoral State" to maintain.