That doesn't follow. The people being taxed are the people living in that state, and their representatives are enacting that tax. As usually Norquist is making up BS to scare people.
The sentiment is still the same.
There are many many cases in the US where you are taxed without a choice of the representatives. You have a choice not to be taxed though, by not going there or doing business there.
I despise Norquist, but I believe the words above are not true in a consequential sense. The law may say 'the state taxes the consumer', but who is meaningfully affected?
The business handles the mechanics of collecting and paying the tax. And whose pocket the tax really comes out of depends on the elasticity of demand, IIRC my economics. That is, it depends on how much the business can raise the price without hurting profits:
If the product is highly price sensitive, something like a can of peas, then the business can't raise the price very much without hurting demand and the tax will effectively come out of the business' profits. If the product is highly price insensitive, such as life-saving drugs, then the cost of the tax will be passed on to the consumer.
What you wrote applies to other things like an increase in rent or property tax, which has to be built into the cost of the product. But it doesn’t apply to sales tax.
(Also, when I buy things in U.S. states with sales tax, the tax is on the bill and even if it's not part of the advertised price, I expect it and it's part of my purchase decision. People regularly cross state lines to avoid sales tax.)
So we could think of it from the point of the business but that wouldn't be based in fact.
For example, at my company, I won’t hire anyone from Kentucky because their employment costs are too high. It’s a choice I get to make. I limit my employee pool but I also avoid costs I don’t like.
Being based in California I can’t choose to follow California tax law or not, but I also get to vote here.
Technically, your friend had to pay use tax when they got it from you. But they probably didn't. Which is why they want the retailer to collect the tax for them.
First, if you are required to possess a sales tax license with that state, and potentially municipalities or jurisdictions within the state that require the fees and paperwork yearly, there is one huge cost, both in time and fees. No software will absolve your liability of this if you mess it up or dont pay the fees, you as the business own it.
If you are required to file monthly or quarterly statements with the state along with any remittances, there is time and costs there. File late, file incorrectly, fees and interest on top of the tax obligation. Refuse or forget to pay the tax to a jurisdiction in backwater Alaska, time and money to wrestle with tax auditors from another state if they pursue action. How will the states negotiate auditors and tax authorities stepping all over eachother within their jurisdictions.
Need to purchase extra services to juggle the spiderweb of compliance, reporting, and remittance issues, there is also more cost, whether in your additional time ($), accountants ($), or third party services ($). Keep in mind, none of these things absolve you of liability if you mess this up.
He is absolutely right.
So he's totally wrong -- you're not being forced to do anything. You're choosing to pay the tax.