Probing an argument is not the same as not appreciating the argument. I think Kelsey is also right that framing an argument, especially one as attenuated as yours, is important. Lastly, asking question to be answered, questioning the underlying basis, and providing similarly held but opposing beliefs is not being dismissive (although it can be), it is a debate. Disagreeing and being irrational are not the same. The civility of this debate already is exponentially higher than anywhere else on the interwebs, but it is still on the interwebs. Rare indeed is the message board that serves as an all encompassing echo chamber of approval.
Because I can't help myself.
I think you are making quite a few presuppositions.
1) You are empowered with rights simply by being a human being.
2) You have a moral right to use your life as you see fit.
3) Because you can provide labor, and that labor is taxed, that that tax is taking a part of your life against your will.
4) Taxation of Income is Necessary.
5) Taxation is a Necessary Evil.
6) Income taxes are enforced using force and intimidation.
To go through these in reverse order.
Income taxes are enforced using force and intimidation.
Yes, not paying taxes can result in civil penalties and even jail time. This is by agreement of the people in the land where you live. Sure, it was decided a simple majority of votes cast from representatives, who were elected by a simply majority of votes cast from a gerrymandered electing population, that population making up an extreme minority of the population as a whole, but, hey, voter apathy amirite? The point is that it has been put to a vote that the force and intimidation is agreed upon as appropriate. Saying that "using force to enforce is wrong" is itself wrong on many levels, starting with the etymology of the words. But You (the figurative you, I'm not attacking you personally) didn't vote for it! You shouldn't be bound by it! Perhaps, but I'll save that for the final point.
Taxation is a Necessary Evil.
This is an unsupported conclusion. To pile on another example of why 100% of something can be wrong, but less than 100% of something can be great, I propose Oxygen. I love the stuff. Can't get enough of it--except that I can. Because 100% pure oxygen is lethal. But the oxygen I'm breathing now, that's the good stuff. I'm willing to give up the pure goods for a solid hit of the dirty, because that's what I want. What I need. And because I want the benefits of some oxygen, it is not evil. It is Good. I want the benefits of some society (teaser trailer again for the end!) and I get a heck of deal by paying taxes as we have collectively agreed to. Do I wish it was less? Of course, I always want a deal, but I'm not finding anyone offering the product I desire--Apple Pie and Toby Keith--for a better cost. So I'll take the good and not call it bad, because the mere existence of something that can be bad in excess does not make any amount of it bad.
Taxation of Income is Necessary.
*disclaimer, you (You you this time, not the figurative you) may not be making this argument, but were using it to present an example or further an argument.
But in an abundance of caution... No, Taxation of Income is not necessary. It is an election, from an election (well, many elections, over time, by ourselves and those that have come before us, but you get what I'm saying). To the opposite, we have not chosen to get rid of the taxation of Income tax, an option every election. So we have made this choice. Whether it is right, wrong, informed, or not, it is not necessary but instead a choice that we as a society have agreed upon. Does that choice impede upon your rights as a human being (the suspense is killing me!).
Because you can provide labor, and that labor is taxed, that that tax is taking a part of your life against your will.
To use the verbatim language: "I can provide labor," "Lets say I want to build up my 'stache," and "I am trading"
These are all choices. You have the free will to not engage in any of these choices. You knowingly enter into these choices, trading your time and toil for the known net prize at the end. Not liking the taxation part of the deal doesn't mean that you are entering into the deal against your free will. I don't like working out, and it takes up my time and makes me temporarily sore, but I do it for the end result.
--To go down this rabbit hole even further, the first $10,300 of your income (just income taxes here, not payroll taxes, keep it on topic) are 100% tax free. 100%!! That's $858.33 a month, slavery free. Pretty nice, huh? Also, of importance, I don't really work out. I was just trying to impress whoever had read this far along.
You have a moral right to use your life as you see fit.
On this I suppose, on second reading, I agree. You do have a moral right to use your life as you see fit. It is a singular moral right, that you hold personally, that you can use your life as you see fit. Your moral right is not the same as mine, hers, his, or ours. If it is against your morals to do X, then you do not have to do X. If it is against society's morals for you to do, or not do, X, and you break those morals, then society has a moral obligation to do as society sees fit. I cannot disagree with you on a moral right, as that is an important part of what makes us who we are. Because it is your morals, it is your right to hold those morals, and acting under your own morals is, truly, your inherent right. But as you concede, you only get to assert that moral right consequence free only so long as you do not infringe upon the moral rights of others.
You are empowered with rights simply by being a human being.
No. No you are not. You have one right, and that is the right to try and survive. Our social constructs and communal living using our species' unique advantage of intelligence (no different than the superiority of the cheetah's speed or the tardigrades near invincibility) does not make that intelligence come saddled with some inherent obligation of decency, respect, and deference to others. We are still undoubtedly animals. It is only through society that we have these "inherent" rights. And those rights do not come without strings.
A good example of a source of inherent rights given by society is, conveniently enough, the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Pretty Cool, huh? It even lends credence to your assertion that we are endowed by our Creator with these unalienable Rights-specifically Liberty, i.e. the right to work without that work propping up society. And I would agree with you that that is a pretty good argument. It makes it tough for me to swallow that pill, however, when this sentence created a nation that, nearly a century later, would have to take Life and Happiness from its own Countrymen in order to enforce that All Men Are Created Equal and deserving of Liberty.
Going further, this Declaration was born from the American Colony's frustration of Britain's policy of Taxation Without Representation. WHAT? We asserted our inalienable rights, implemented the philosophies of such revolutionaries as Rosseau, Locke, and Voltaire, threw off the colonial patronage of the strongest nation in the western world to rise up to become the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, Birthplace of Baseball, Rock and Roll, Back to Back World War Champs, Where were you when the world stopped turning, Fried Macaroni and Cheese, Still the only Country to put a man on the Moon, God Bless 'MERICA RED WHITE AND BLUE.... because of taxation without representation?
The Declaration bore the Constitution. The Constitution governs our society, but "We the People" govern the Constitution. The Constitution included Article V, allowing for Amendments. Article V's allowance for Amendments led to the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment allows for Federal Income Taxes.
You live in a place that was born from the very thing that you are protesting against. Let that sink in for a moment.
Maybe it sheds some light. Maybe I just made you angry, which wasn't the intention (this was more engaging than working). But at the very least, I hope that it shows you that your perspective of what is rational might not jive with others perspectives of what is rational. And that is ok. Different positions and different perspectives are what make things great.
It just so happens that my perspective is the right one because I'm awesome. ;)