Nope. What my argument boils down to is there are some people that believe it is acceptable to initiate aggression and some that don't. Your core philosophy is a moving and flexible thing...which of course is oxymoronic. People that move their core philosophy around are prone to rationalize....over and over again.
lol, there you go again with your "initiating aggression" fallback.
there is a difference between "initiating aggression" and enforcing the law. you can't be "initiating aggression" against people who tell you to "initiate aggression" on their behalf.
as tokeprep has pointed out, the people elected the representatives who put into place the 16th amendment, and we still retain the ability to send in a new set of representatives who can repeal it.
just because they didn't ask every teenage rob roy out there if they were OK with it doesn't mean shit.
my core philosophy in the constitution and self governance, and they are not a flexible thing.
keep rationalizing your angst as "aggression initiated by those scary jackbooted thugs" just because they didn't make sure their centuries old laws were OK with you first, i'll keep laughing at you about it.