, you claim it's OK for government to take our money. Once government takes our money, it
decides how it is used, including to fund wars.
If a government democratically voted to sterilize those in generational poverty, would that be OK? If not, why then is it OK when a government democratically votes to take money away from people?
Are you saying Facebook and Google are welcome to take away
money from people even if the people don't want to fund them?
Like I said, the Internet wouldn't be the same today -- most likely TCP/IP wouldn't exist in the way that it does. But connection would exist. Who cares how it's done? (BTW, you might want to take a look at openflow.org
-- Google has actually gone beneath the TCP/IP stack in order to gain better throughput in data transfers). When you claim that such connection wouldn't exist if it weren't for government, you might as well claim that toilet paper and food wouldn't have existed in the USSR when its government was responsible for those goods.
If you care about the victims, you should promote not funding such wars. Again, if you promote government taking our money, you, even though indirectly, promote such funding because government is the one deciding how that money is used (and those most influential to the government (eg the Military Industrial Complex) affects those decisions more than you do).
You close your mind to new knowledge (eg not even considering the wrongness of taxation). If you are really open, how about answering my questions (including those I've asked of Shaker)? If government has actually been the one giving and the Saverins of the world the ones taking, why is it that people want to make it more difficult for the Saverins of the world to end the relationship? Doesn't it make more sense that those benefiting more from the relationship would raise the barriers to end that relationship?
In the end, the only reason one can justify taxation is when one realizes one gets more from others, through force, than one would get through voluntary transactions. It is not mutual benefit one seeks, it is one-sided benefit. If one doesn't believe that, one ought to promote voluntary funding of projects such that only those who want those projects funded would fund them with their own money. One who likes taxation will quickly object claiming that the projects they
like will become underfunded completely ignoring the desires of the true owners of that money and how they would rather use it. That
is true greed, the greed of wanting to take from others, not of wanting to decide how one's own money is used.