Bias is something we all have and encounter. Those of us who use logic to assess the validity of an argument often recognise biases quickly, even in ourselves. However, there is a difference between biases based on logically derived arguments and those based on faith/belief.
Logical biases vs faith biases
Logical biases are based on known or derived sets of facts (the derived facts being based on the known facts of an issue). Faith biases are based on emotions & traditions. By using logic, one can prove a condition as being categorically true or false, and a person builds a bias in favour of that proof. Disprove said proof, and the bias must be questioned again.
Faith based biases, however, presume what is true or false. After presuming the outcome, people then seek to justify the belief. As they did not start with a logical foundation to their premise, they tend to resort to strawmen, cherrypicking data, dismissing arguments via appeals to the stone, use circular reasoning, or resort to ad hominem insults to discredit those that question their belief and faith.
Taxation, logically derived as theft
So let's work on a use case - taxation. For instance, if theft is defined as "acquiring the property of another without consent", logically any action that fits this definition is a form of theft. We can define consent in this as "an explicit declaration of approval, provided voluntarily".
Now, as the state appropriates money from people to spend as the state sees fit, and does so with no contractually defined terms that have been agreed to & signed by the taxpayer, we can presume that taxation is a form of theft.
Why consent cannot be presumed
We cannot presume that any taxpayer consents to pay taxes at any point without an explicit declaration (aka a contract). Paying taxes does not qualify as consent, as it presumes consent exists without proof. To claim it does imply consent means any mugger on the street can claim you voluntarily consented to giving the mugger your property if you don't fight him.
Faith based arguments: taxation & existence of the state
Arguments in favour of taxation require the definition of theft to be predicated on what the state claims is "legal". Unfortunately, this creates a paradox where theft can be both consensual and not consensual, depending on the actor committing the theft. If the state commits theft via taxation, it is legal, while individuals who commit theft are doing something illegal. This paradox comes from the logical fallacies built cleverly into the argument, to whit, a strawman of the definition of theft & circular reasoning.
The circular reasoning element is harder to qualify, but it goes a bit like this. States need taxation in order to function and continue existing. Taxation requires a state in order to exist at all. As neither taxation or states can function without the other condition being true, one must presume that either taxation or states always exist for both to work. As states are an object and taxation is an action, the state's existence is the one that must be assumed as true for any argument to work. But a state is just an idea - it has no physical mass of its own. It only exists inside our heads. Presuming its physical existence is a faith based bias.
Conclusion
So, the next time you encounter someone claiming taxation is necessary, or legality is a basis for good decision making, as yourself: "is this premise logical, or just faith?"