In Reply to Ronald Reagan

Representation comes at a cost simply because its very justification as a concept is dependent on an external reality? Yet that relationship, if true that is, can only be measured by taxation? Do you mean as accepted by all in this reality external to the self, or only those who pay taxation?
Consequently if by all, this must mean representation of any individual is by degree of importance to the external all in terms of taxation per capita; either based on ability to pay, or where greater contribution means an automatically greater individual status (who would decide exactly how that is to be represented?).
How can the latter be justified if human beings have an intrinsic and unquantifiable value in the first place? At least the former above gives a nod to this accepted and shared very human principle.
The mantra "there is no such thing as a free lunch" has always been bunkum in any case. Quid pro quo is not and has never been a universal principle, either. Both are the antithesis of one.
Unless you are referring to an unthinking human dynamic existent since we began forming societies, therefore we unknowingly play quid pro quo in every interaction we have with each other, therefore too to a logical end there IS no representation without taxation, we are what we are in spite of paying taxes or not.
The very fact we exist and interact with that which is exterior to us all, because we MUST, whether that is measured individually or as a collective concept, is about much much more than any idea postulating we can only represent ourselves by how much tax we pay; how much individually to "the pot", or even if not at all.
Nations on the assumption ALL their citizens agree, overplay this game and miss out too many other important things as a result. This leads to not a mantra but an actual truth, that of: "misrepresentation through taxation." Try that instead.
Cheers.