You're saying that the government is entitled to the fruits of its collective extortion because it provides collective benefits, aren't you?
Please look up a definition of collectivism. Then we will talk.
But I don't think you're really opposed to all forms of collectivism. I know I'm not. For example, my family is much closer to operating under economic collectivism than economic capitalism--internally, I mean.
I believe we were speaking of governments, not families, in this context.
Funding techniques differ, and so do people's opinions of what constitutes "necessary government."
Yes, that's why we have representative government, i.e., so we can come to an approximation of a consensus on the matter. The more decentralized the government structure, the more likely any individual will live under a local government that shares his view of what "necessary government" is. The Constitution sets the limits for the federal government.
And if you decide you don't need or want those services?
Well, if you are entirely self-sufficient, I suppose you will have no need to ever pay sales tax. If, however, you choose to benefit from the trade environment, then you pay as you go.
Why do you need a coercive government to help you conduct business?
I believe we've covered this one
ad nauseam already.
