You read that correctly.
Taxation is morally wrong for the same reason that rape is morally wrong: both acts constitute non-consensual trespass. Calling a tax break a subsidy is like calling a rapist's decision to be more gentle and/or rape his victim(s) less frequently a sexual favor. Calling a tax protester a criminal is like calling a rape victim a whore.
The acts of taxation and rape both start from the presumption that individuals do not have the highest claim of ownership over their own bodies, but rather that the preferences of a ruling class of individuals should be forced onto the bodies and property of others without their consent.
When consensual sex happens, it's because all consenting parties expect to benefit from the encounter. When rape happens, the rapist expects to benefit to the detriment of his victim. Likewise, when consensual exchange happens, it's because all parties to the exchange expect to benefit from the encounter. When the theft of taxation happens, a ruling class of thieves benefit to the detriment of everyone else.
If the outcome of a rape is that the victim has a baby that they love, it does not justify the rape or mean that the victim wasn't raped. Likewise, if the outcome of an act of theft/taxation is that the victim gets a road (and a mountain of transgenerational debt, as the case may be), it does not justify theft or mean that the victim wasn't robbed.
People do not need to be gang raped to ensure that reproduction happens as this would be both inefficient and morally abhorrent. Likewise, any service provided by the men and women calling themselves "government" can be provided more efficiently without bureaucratic middle men, the inherent, deleterious waste of theft, and the negative psychological effects of having one's consent violated.
Conclusions
When it comes to sexual relationships, most people understand that individuals must be free to withhold or withdraw their consent in order for an encounter to be considered consensual. But for some reason, that flies out the window in the realm of exchange - at least as far as roads, schools, healthcare, security and other certain services go.
That's why you see people pearl clutching and appealing to fictitious social contracts in an attempt to feign a moral high ground as though their aggressionism is pure and altruistic (coughgaslightingsociopathscough). It's just a ruse to mask their preference for violating the consent of others. "You're free to leave if you don't like it!", they say. Except that consent isn't determined by where you're standing, especially when "leaving" - or "expatriation", in statist terms - also has an involuntary taxation and application process.
If statists were being honest, they'd actually say, "You're free to beg for permission to leave from your thief overlords if you don't like it. They'll see how they're feeling about letting you leave depending on their mood and your willingness to submit to further theft."
Of course, this isn't entirely unlike a rapist telling his victim from behind the barrel of a gun that he'll let her run away without shooting her if she gives him her wallet.
Bottom line: If you reject rape, the only way to be morally and logically consistent is to also reject taxation and statism for the same reason.
About the Author
I'm Jared Howe! I'm a Voluntaryist hip hop artist and professional technical editor/writer with a passion for Austrian economics and universal ethics. You can catch my podcast every Friday on the Seeds of Liberty Podcast Network.