Originally Posted by
Endus
So, you're against rule of law in all things, then?
Because law cannot be enforced outside of the use of "government force".
If you do agree that rule of law should exist, then you acknowledge the government has a mandate to use force on the behalf of the citizenry, and your entire house of cards on this point collapses.
Or you don't, in which case you're agreeing that anyone should be able to just walk into your house, kill you and your family, and take up residence, and that's cool, no worries brah.
Edit: For clarity, what you are doing is stating a universal maxim ("Government force is bad"), and decrying taxation solely on the basis that it violates that principle.
If that argument works for taxation, it works for rule of law, all of it, even down to the simple ones like rape, murder, and robbery. You'd have to oppose such laws, because they require the use of government force, and, as above, "government force is bad".
The moment you acknowledge that some government force is acceptable, you can't keep trying to make use of the "government force is bad" maxim; you've admitted that maxim is wrong, in your own views. You would have to specify why any particular use of force is "bad", on its own merits and within context, and without trying to fall back on a maxim you don't actually believe to be true, because doing so would be blatant dishonesty.