(Seriously, what kind of response are you expecting? There are so many assumptions built in to your question that you're basically asking for a summary of political philosophy).
"Property rights" aren't any natural rights. It's a societal agreement, and that agreement comes with strings attached. In your case you pay taxes, and your society holds everyone up to this bunch of collective agreements, including not taking away your property just willy-nilly (confiscation).
> In your case you pay taxes, and your society holds everyone up to this bunch of collective agreements, including not taking away your property just willy-nilly (confiscation).
Except that's...not happening, in one of the largest, and without doubt the most powerful, "democracies" in the world. Police do take away your property willy-nilly in the USA without trial.
Taxation in a democracy is inherently legitimate. And the reasoning behind it is explained clearly in Rousseau's Social Contract, although the idea goes back centuries. Simply stated, if you decide to continue living in a society, then you implicitly agree to abide by its rules. In most countries, the agreement means paying taxes set by elected representatives.
Rousseau's social contract, while a fine piece of work, would almost certainly advocate a monarchy for a state the size of America. Its use here seems to be an appeal to authority, which seems odd as there are no mentions to it anywhere within our governing documents, upon which a less spurious legitimacy is bestowed.
Beyond that, categorizing anything as "inherently legitimate" is fraught with peril. One could perhaps surmise that all things are legitimate within a democracy, but so long as the favors of the majority come at the expense of the minority, that claim is disputable.
Beyond that, I don't really know that Rousseau's contract would invalidate a North Korean government as it exists, and North Korean citizenship precludes the option of defection.
The biggest flaw I see with the assertion that "if you want to live here, you agree to pay taxes" is that there's no opt-out policy in America as it is. If you object to the taxation, and wish to opt out, your only path is expatriation, with its associated expatriation taxes.
I'd say that the tautology of what the system agrees is legitimate is what is legitimate (no less useful than gravity pulls things together because it pulls things together). Laws promoting racism were broken in the US, and the law-breakers were quickly recognized as legitimate. Perhaps some types of tax dodgers might be considered legitimate. The beauty of a democracy is that if you can convince enough people that something should be legitimate/illegitimate, they can make it so.
And yes "inherently legitimate" was a poor phrase to choose.
And I believe many founders leaned heavily on Rousseau's work. Hamilton and Madison particularly in the Federalist Papers.
> I'd say that the tautology of what the system agrees is legitimate is what is legitimate
And which is inherently fallacious, even going against Rousseau. Slavery as an institution was systemically agreed upon by the institution. There is no inherent legitimacy in violating the liberties of others, and while I agree that any such comparison is flawed, agreeing on slavery as an institution is no more or less legitimate due to populist demand than the insistence of taking some people's money and giving it to others.
Are there benefits? Undoubtedly; but even something mathematically proven as "good" (as if we could do such a thing) is not necessarily legitimate, however well founded the idea or the intent. That said, this is all philosophical, to be sure, but since we're waxing, may as well get fully waxed. (Don't ask me what that means, cause I have no idea.)
> And I believe many founders leaned heavily on Rousseau's work
Let's see... neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence explicitly use the word "republic" for the United States as a whole, so you should perhaps reconsider that argument.
Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, and Section 3, in their first paragraphs clearly define the legislative branch as a representative democracy.
Indeed. Logical consistency would dictate that you should either be for both or against both, but not for one and against the other.
But humans are notorious for allowing emotional concerns, religious beliefs, and simple self-interest override logic.
Maybe they just don't like the reverse-lottery aspect of funding the government. Rather than a lucky person getting a windfall from the government, an unlucky person loses everything to it. You can avoid the lottery by not buying tickets, but the only way to avoid the anti-lottery is by not having anything to steal. For most people, that would be a pretty miserable existence.
People want to believe that their government exists to serve their interests. They may be more upset that the government is spoiling the illusion of fairness--that the government is doing all this publicly--than the fact that the government is doing it at all. Because as bad as they might have it now, if there is a rebellion, the new boss might, in fact, be worse than the old boss.
http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/...
http://www.amazon.com/A-Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000...
(Seriously, what kind of response are you expecting? There are so many assumptions built in to your question that you're basically asking for a summary of political philosophy).