Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, funny how your common sense just suddenly stopped being able to process stuff once the discussion got to a conclusion you didn't happen to like.
Once the issue at hand got to moral perceptions of governments that operate on codes of law hundreds of thousands of pages in size that are administered by 100,000+ people. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to suggest that not everything that public opinion supports is a result of a common sense assessment of all of its aspects. If that were actually the case, we wouldn't need to have courts of law decide on cas…
Nobody said "common sense assessment of all of its aspects"; just that the idea of "taxation" appears "just" to the "common sense":
>>>Just as our common sense, which favors functional societies, sees taxation as just.
>>Our commen sense has nothing to do with support for income taxation.
Your goalpost-moving started with inserting "income" here.
Also, "we need a jury of our peers to deliberate on the issue before reaching a judgment" is not a given. That's one way to reach a judgment, but not the only one.