Clearly, "commerce is a right" and "a right cannot be taxed" are not axioms, because people (including, evidently, you) disagree with them, and therefore they are not accepted as true without controversy. They are just my premises.
When I say "cannot be taxed", I mean that the taxation destroys its status as a right.
Matters related to the Supreme Court are distracting from the core argument. I withdraw any claims I made regarding the SCotUS. They were only made as a matter of rhetorical convenience.
As a result, this is the argument:
1. A right is any activity that members of a society agree to protect unconditionally. (definition)
2. Therefore, if conditions are placed on an activity, it is not a right. (contraposition)
3. Voluntary commerce is a right. (premise)
4. Taxation represents the addition of a money-based condition to an activity. (premise)
5. Voluntary commerce includes one or more buyers, and one or more sellers, wherein the sellers transfer ownership to a good or provide a service to the buyers, and the buyers transfer ownership of a quantity of trade currency to the sellers. (definition)
6. Sales taxes apply to commercial activity, when the seller transfers ownership of goods or renders service. (by definition)
7. Income taxes apply to commercial activity, when the buyer transfers ownership of trade currency. (by definition)
6. Therefore, if commerce is a right, application of sales or income taxes would destroy its status as such.
The logic is sound, so only the premises are assailable.
I should clarify that when I said "external impediment", I meant that such impediments can only be created by actors with moral agency. If a mountain stands between you and the marketplace, it is not an external impediment to your right to commerce; it just increases your overhead costs. A highwayman that robs, kidnaps, or murders you on your way to the market is, in that he made a choice that ultimately prevented you from trading. I don't know of any more precise term to describe this. Antagonism, perhaps?
When I say "cannot be taxed", I mean that the taxation destroys its status as a right.
Matters related to the Supreme Court are distracting from the core argument. I withdraw any claims I made regarding the SCotUS. They were only made as a matter of rhetorical convenience.
As a result, this is the argument:
1. A right is any activity that members of a society agree to protect unconditionally. (definition) 2. Therefore, if conditions are placed on an activity, it is not a right. (contraposition) 3. Voluntary commerce is a right. (premise) 4. Taxation represents the addition of a money-based condition to an activity. (premise) 5. Voluntary commerce includes one or more buyers, and one or more sellers, wherein the sellers transfer ownership to a good or provide a service to the buyers, and the buyers transfer ownership of a quantity of trade currency to the sellers. (definition) 6. Sales taxes apply to commercial activity, when the seller transfers ownership of goods or renders service. (by definition) 7. Income taxes apply to commercial activity, when the buyer transfers ownership of trade currency. (by definition) 6. Therefore, if commerce is a right, application of sales or income taxes would destroy its status as such.
The logic is sound, so only the premises are assailable.
I should clarify that when I said "external impediment", I meant that such impediments can only be created by actors with moral agency. If a mountain stands between you and the marketplace, it is not an external impediment to your right to commerce; it just increases your overhead costs. A highwayman that robs, kidnaps, or murders you on your way to the market is, in that he made a choice that ultimately prevented you from trading. I don't know of any more precise term to describe this. Antagonism, perhaps?