2 does not follow from 1 for any other reason besides you saying it does, so your logic falls apart.
#2 is a premise, an axiom. An organization threatening you with <NOPE> to get money from you matches both extortion and "taxation".
No see it's like this. The mob comes to you and says, "we're gonna make things rough on you. the only way out is to pay us off." The government on the other hand, determines that certain things (services, infrastructure, defense, etc) are vital to a functioning society and asks that its citizens pay a portion of their income, purchases, property value etc towards funding those things. Some citizens decide they'd rather not, so the government has to enact incentives (generally negative) to encourage people to pay.
You know "ask" is not the right word, right? I bet you also understand that your argument is based on that.. shall we say, mistake? ("encourage" is wrong too)asks that its citizens pay
So in your world the government would collect no taxes? Sounds great. I'm sure that will go well. You can call it whatever you want but the fact remains that in order to have a functioning society, some costs must be collectivized and borne by all of the people, for the benefit of (ideally) all the people.
Somehow you failed to mention why "costs must be collectivized", and what the "costs" even are, and to whom? Also, politicians just keep showing us, with their actions, that they're not working towards our interests, but their own (and their cronies). Why would you still insist otherwise?the fact remains that in order to have a functioning society, some costs must be collectivized and borne by all of the people, for the benefit of (ideally) all the people