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.

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.

Well I do respect the government as legitimate, but I still think a legitimate government can commit wrongful actions. Holding American citizens indefinitely with no warrant or probable cause under the Patriot Act is wrongful, invading a foreign country without a declaration of war from congress is wrongful, and I think that overtaxation is also wrongful. 

America was founded by patriots who wanted rid of the oppressive/overtaxing British monarchy, and now all we've done is replace it by an oppressive/overtaxing president.

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.

Well I do respect the government as legitimate, but I still think a legitimate government can commit wrongful actions. Holding American citizens indefinitely with no warrant or probable cause under the Patriot Act is wrongful, invading a foreign country without a declaration of war from congress is wrongful, and I think that overtaxation is also wrongful. 

America was founded by patriots who wanted rid of the oppressive/overtaxing British monarchy, and now all we've done is replace it by an oppressive/overtaxing president.

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?