…a lot of people would be off the hook – for the time being, anyway. To name just a few who would, teenagers under age 18, non-citizen immigrants, and tourists. “No taxation without representation” says that if you can vote for your representatives, taxation (or anything else the state requires of you for that matter) is just. If someone accepts that as a premise, they must conclude that these groups of unrepresented people be untaxed on income, sales, property, excises, etc.
Critics might argue, “Yeah but, foreigners choose to come here; I’ve always been here.” So you’re saying that by virtue of an unrepresented person living under a given government, they’re consenting to being taxed? Then you’re rejecting the argument of “no taxation without representation”! You’re saying anyone who argued that throughout US history (colonists, women, etc.) had no argument because they could have just moved.
Besides, why do foreigners want to come here? to be governed by the government? Is that the only reason you’re still here? Or are you still here so you can be with your family, work a job, and enjoy your private property? Sure, some come here because the government here is better than the one of their homelands. But who needs government when you’ve got markets?! Have you read any Rothbard?! (Yeah, I wouldn’t recommend this segue :P)
Also, what about teenagers? Strike that, not just teenagers. Anyone who wasn’t eligible the vote in the most recent election. If there were “no taxation without representation,” you’d have two choices: exempt these people or kick/keep them all out. And when I say them, I mean your teenage kid, too. After all, that kid probably took someone’s job. Damn kids, ruinin’ Amurica. We got unemployment here. That, or we could raise the age you can start working to 35 until unemployment drops below 5%. After all, older people were here first! Yreah!!