Individuals have basic inalienable rights.  They are free to pursue those rights as they see fit.  The state was created to manage the interactions when those rights potentially conflict to protect the rights of the citizens.  For instance, my right to the pursuit of happiness doesn't Trump a Woman's right to sovereignty over her own body or my neighbors right to private property.  

Under a constitutional system of government, The state doesn't inherently have rights, it has limited enumerated subordinate to the collective will of the people.  The government has the enumerated authority to protect the life liberty and property of its citizens.  You show me where it has the enumerated power to arbitrarily tax my food choices.

They can lay whatever the hell kind of tax they want, as long as it's not retroactive (ex post facto) or targeting a specific person (bill of attainfer). Taxation is an Article I Section 8 and added to by the 16th Amendment.  
The enumerated powers become an important consideration when you're considering what the government spends the money on, not how they got it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So limited government is really just playing red rover red rover as to what social engineering can be passed off as a tax? Ok....

When have these schemes worked exactly? How s California doing?

---

So limited government is really just playing red rover red rover as to what social engineering can be passed off as a tax?  Ok....

When have these schemes worked exactly?   How s California doing?

No JJ. In theory a government with a different Constitution may have strict limits on the types of taxes it can impose. You can see this with our state government they specifically cannot have an income tax and they can only have certain types of property taxes. Our federal government has no such restrictions. It is limited in some ways but not that way.
By the way California has lots of restrictions on what can and cannot be taxed in their constitution.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

See Paul Harrell's excellent video on the best handgun to use when shooting from under a blanket.  Maybe that would have exacted revenge at the ideal time and place which is during the commission of the crime, by the victim of the crime.  Any other form of justice is sub-optimal, whether performed by government or motivated relatives.  Prevention is always better than trying to find the least horrible way to deal with the aftermath.

So the answer to your question is - who cares?  They're still dead.

Who cares? Neighbors who want the murders dealt with so they don't have to cuddle up with a loaded handgun every night.

Because those are the only murderers in the world, right? And once Nanny government gets the bad guys, we can all sleep soundly again - except Nanny has overcrowded jails and and anyway, they were just about to turn their lives around. Six months probation.

---

So limited government is really just playing red rover red rover as to what social engineering can be passed off as a tax?  Ok....

When have these schemes worked exactly?   How s California doing?

No JJ. In theory a government with a different Constitution may have strict limits on the types of taxes it can impose. You can see this with our state government they specifically cannot have an income tax and they can only have certain types of property taxes. Our federal government has no such restrictions. It is limited in some ways but not that way.
By the way California has lots of restrictions on what can and cannot be taxed in their constitution.

The purpose of the taxing authority is to find the enumerated powers of the state, not to have a backdoor to circumvent the doctrine of limited government.  For instance, if the congress needed to raise a sum of money for a war effort, regulating interstate commerce etc. Then it would follow that its taxing authority was unilateral.  Conversely, any and all draconian economic intervention being rubber stamped because you call part of it a TAX is silly on its face.  If it were the case that the power of the state was universal due to its ability to tax then WHY WRITE A CONSTITUTION?

---

No JJ. In theory a government with a different Constitution may have strict limits on the types of taxes it can impose. You can see this with our state government they specifically cannot have an income tax and they can only have certain types of property taxes. Our federal government has no such restrictions. It is limited in some ways but not that way.
By the way California has lots of restrictions on what can and cannot be taxed in their constitution.

The purpose of the taxing authority is to find the enumerated powers of the state, not to have a backdoor to circumvent the doctrine of limited government.  For instance, if the congress needed to raise a sum of money for a war effort, regulating interstate commerce etc. Then it would follow that its taxing authority was unilateral.  Conversely, any and all draconian economic intervention being rubber stamped because you call part of it a TAX is silly on its face.  If it were the case that the power of the state was universal due to its ability to tax then WHY WRITE A CONSTITUTION?

You're not wrong.  You should take a look at the Helvering v. Davis decision of 1937, which not only affirmed that the Federal government can impose pretty much any tax on pretty much any class of persons or things, but also gave a broad application to the general welfare clause.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In 1973 scouts took an interesting look at what qualifies as personhood. I don't agree with that interpretation either. Until they can admit what "establish" contextually means I think its important to view their decisions through the lens of desired political outcome instead of true constitutional intent.

---