The problem with raising taxes is that the entire system is so littered with red tape and barriers, the hope of such an increase resulting in a positive result is unlikely. Revenues for taxation as a % of GDP is low, and needs corrected. I do not disagree with that (we're at about 15-16% of GDP, with the historical average being between 18-19%).

However, part of the culprit is the tax system itself. There are virtually thousands of pages of codes and laws for our tax system, which is fraught with deductions, loopholes, and special interests. Go after those first. Take out the deductions and other things that people use to game the system.. Simply raising taxes will, in the case of America, just add to the insane regulatory and compliance costs associated with the system.

That is why I want a flat tax - even if it was a higher overall rate. It'd get rid of the cronyism that is endemic with the American system of taxation.

Constitution of Delaware. 

§20. Right to keep and bear arms. 

Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (4-16-87)

Constitution of Pennsylvania. 

Right to Bear Arms 
Section 21.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Constitution of Connecticut. 

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Constitution of New Hampshire.

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Constitution of Rhode Island. 

Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

From these five state constitutions, it should be pretty clear that it's referring to the general right of people to keep and bear arms. Sometimes in defense of the state is mentioned, sometimes it mentions family/property, but they always mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is probably safe to assume that there were a significant number of people who believed this to be the function of the 2nd Amendment as well.

From the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This also clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does say that a well regulated millitia is necessary, but it specifically states the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, with no exceptions. That seems pretty clear to me. Now you can argue that it is no longer needed, but I do believe that it is intended to protect the right of people to keep and bear arms, not just for a millitia, but for anything.

---

To the italicized part; should according to whom? What if the social contract forces them to do something that goes against what they believe? Say someone is a pacifist and are completely against war. The government spends a ton of money on war, but according to the social contract, you have to pay taxes. According to them, no one should agree with the social contract because it goes against their beliefs. 

So the social contract's agreeability is subjective and will vary depending on who is asked. Why then, are we trying to enforce an arbitrary system on a group of people who do not agree with it? You can argue that it makes life better for everyone, which is debatable, but what if these people live in the middle of nowhere, Wyoming. They are completely isolated from the rest of the US, and recieve no benefits from the system. Should they be forced to be part of a society they have no desire to join? 

I believe your argument will be that they are on US owned land, and do benefit from things like defense and so they should be forced to. But then if the power to rule comes from the governed, and the people no longer consent to be governed, should they not be within their rights to no longer accept to be ruled by this government that has ceased representing their interests?  

From the Declaration of Independence. 

 That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

I suppose you can argue that if the majority agree to a government, then it doesn't matter what the minority want. But then if the majority decide what the minority can and can't do, what happens if the majority become tyrannical and enslave the minority? That is a danger of majority rule, and could be done completely legitimately (according to the government) through amendments and laws. 

---

Also, your comment that no philosophy is set to endure forever bothers me. Before I comment further, however, can you please define what you mean by philosophy?

I'm fine with a reasonable amount of taxing to pay for military, roads, firefighters, policemen and courts (plus maybe a couple other things)... but before the Reagan tax cuts we were talking 80% taxes for the highest bracket...how anyone can support that is what I don't understand. 

And how can you say taxes aren't theft? Just because you get something for the money they take doesn't mean it's something you want. If I put a gun to your head and made you give me $60...then I bought you a copy of Madden NFL 13 you wouldn't necessarily be happy because maybe if I didn't steal that $60 you would have bought Borderlands 2 instead or some other game you wanted more. You see what I mean? It drives me nuts when my tax dollars go towards programs and funding that I absolutely do no support. 

Not offhand, was something they were talking about on NPR a few months back.

They brought in three different french policy makers and had them generally discuss the social saftey net in france.

This was back when France passed the 50% mark for government spending/GDP.

As i recall the main issues were Organized Labor wouldn't go for it, the French people didn't want to live like Danes, less social cohesiveness.

I'd look it up, but honestly X-Com rules so i'm not in the mood for a google delve, if i get some computer time when it's slow tommorrow at work i'll give it a look.

You note that the word "state" comes up a lot in those articles.

I misspoke on the point of philosophy. What i meant was that systems founded to ordain or preserve a certain philosophy cannot endure forever. The specific balance that the Founders struck in the late 18th century needed to be revised in the Civil War period, again in the early 20th century, and now the balance needs to be re-struck. The idea endures,  to be certain, but the systems are not so inherently bound to the idea that the Founders' governmental frameworks should be held as sacrosanct.

Because taxes aren't theft. It's a simple, categorical thing.

What do you even mean by that? 

Taxes are by definition theft:

I do, but I also note that it is not for the sole protection of states that people can have guns. The only consistent theme in all of those is the right to keep and bear arms. One function may be to defend the state, others may be to defend yourself and your property, or as one even notes, recreational use.

My point was that it's not at all absurd to say that in the original context, the 2nd amendment was not designed to only protect the right to have a gun when you're in a militia, but also for your own personal protection and use. Again, you can argue that the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant, but I do not think the original meaning of the amendment is nearly as ambiguous as some say.

Thank you for the clarification. So would you say that there is an objective truth that the system has been working towards, or is it something that is entirely dependant upon society at the current time?

The argument depends on how you view property rights. If the government is the legitimate owner of the territory it controls, then taxes cannot be theft. If the government came to own its territory illegitimately, then taxes are theft. So the question here is, did the government come to own its territory legitimately?

But "wrongful" is not up to personal opinion. Never has been. To state otherwise annihilates millennia of discourse on ethics, or reverts us to relativism (and relativism is the "Godwin's Law" of ethics debates, so we must avoid it at all costs).

Unless we could successfully build an argument that the social contract itself is flawed, or that there is a point upon which the government is deemed to be no longer legitimate on the whole, and then all of their actions from authority become "wrong." But a government which is legitimate, applying its power and excercising its need to collect funds to accomplish such cannot be "wrong."

Wrongness could also come into play if the government had an amoral means by which to collect taxes, but taxes cannot be amoral so long as the government is legitimate.