So, I'm a firm believer in the concept of "taxes" specific to a service, and the nature of deriving those taxes must directly come from those that benefit the service, in proportion to their utility, and that those services must solve a problem that only a collective can solve efficiently.

So like, car registration fees go to pay for roads, no other taxes are used to pay for roads, they're not used to pay for anything else. Everyone pays in proportion to their utility in two ways: you driving your car, and you paying those fees on products you buy that were trucked on the roads. That to me is about as perfect a solution to a tragedy of the commons that requires collusion between individuals constituting the citizenry. It's voluntary; you only pay it if you need it. It's derived directly from benefitting from the roads, no convoluted pathways. And, it's something that can only efficiently be done by the citizenry as a whole, private roads can and do exist, but they're way less efficient.

Tariffs, I think should pay for a navy, only pay for a navy, and that a navy should only be funded via tariffs. If you ship on the high seas, you need protection, you need a navy, and so you pay for the navy in proportion to your benefit from it's existence. A navy can include port of entry security I suppose, they serve that function already on the water.

As far as other types of taxes, there is absolutely nothing I can think of justifying income taxes of any kind. I can justify property taxes (armies to protect territory and courts to handle property disputes), but not really anything else.

That's my principle for just taxation: one tax per service the government provides, the government only provides services that are best served by it, and the tax must be directly derived from those who benefit from the service it finds, and directly in proportion to the benefit they receive. If it doesn't meet those criteria, it cannot be a just tax. 

 I like the idea, but I think property tax is one of, if not the worst tax because it means you don't own your property.  You only rent it (by paying tax) to the government.  You can pay off your property, but then lose it if you or your heirs can't afford the taxes. 

 Yes. I used to agree with you until I read this

https://falkvinge.net/2017/03/01/a-simplified-taxless-state-a-proposal-part-1/

You can read all three parts, and I strongly encourage it, but the basic idea is that you don't, and can't, actually own property outright, unless you can, yourself, protect it from others who set out to steal it from you by force, with force, without asking the government to save you via armies or court systems. If you want property without paying property taxes, and also without having your own private army capable of defending your property (which would cost you more than paying taxes, theory of the firm I'll link to that at the end), that is, you want access to the court and the army in case of disputes, you're what's called a free rider in game theory, and those that do pay for the army and courts are subsidizing the security of your land. You can frame it however you want, either that the government owns the land because they're the only ones capable of defending it and so you pay rent, or that you own the land but you're paying a retainer for the service of protecting it from thieves big and small, but either way it amounts to the same thing for you practically speakong., to keep your land without raising an army of your own you have to pay someone to have that army for you.

My concept of taxes derived directly from functions of government in proportion to the benefit one receives from that function being performed is a generalization of this concept and stems from my understanding reading this, I can't stress enough how great of a read this is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm