You do not "pay" your taxes. The taxes are taken from you. It does not matter if you send the wire transfer yourself. You do that because you want to avoid more severe penalty and direct confiscation and arrest.
As long as property is taken from you under threat of murder (if you try to protect yourself against the policeman, you'll be shot down, so every law is basically a threat of murder), it does not matter how many goodies you get back. Because whether you like the goodies or not, you are not in control of that. If you like your fire department, good for you, but it's not a result of your choice, it is done without your input whatsoever. And whatever "voice" or "vote" you have is not what you were using to establish the fire dept, but it is *given* to you in a limited way to serve the interests of those who define how to use the budget.
If this situation does not bother you, then why don't you allow me to unilaterally manage your money and buy you stuff without asking you first? If you don't want to give me such right, then why do you allow such right for gov, even though you never have given it explicitly? This just seems illogical.
In the end, being moderate libertarian is like being a little pregnant. Something is either moral or immoral. If you think the idea of gov is morally okay, then how do you draw the line between gov and non-gov? And why the government cannot be absolute? Why democratic majority cannot kill minority? Why certain actions on part of some people are evil (theft, threat of murder), but on part of others are moral (taxation, arrests)?
It absolutely does bother me. However, speaking for the US at least, there has never been a better for of government, and as corrupt as they can be, government is "a necessary evil."
Theoretically at least, the idea of the Constitution is to provide protection from the majority. I believe in a small government, free-market capitalism, a common-law based legal system (which the government must abide by as well as the people) and hard currency. That being said, I DO beleive in a government.
I am pretty much solidly Libertarian, but differ on a few points with the more hard-line (leaning anarchist) ones: I think (reasonable) environmental protection, anti-collusion and anti-monopoly laws, and large scale infrastructure development are legitimate purposes of government, I also don't have a problem with a military. Oh, and also a small last-resort (not to mention temporary except in cases of inability to work) safety net is a good idea.
Not to get off track here, but imagine aviation without regulations. As a pilot... I can't. Sure, the FAA goes too far, but I'd rather too many rules than none.
All that stuff costs money, and since I don't believe in tariffs except in retaliation for foreign manipulation and tariffs, taxes are just about the only way to do that.
Additionally, while I think that civil disobedience has it's place, I think that except in cases of clear injustice, citizens should work through the system. Democracy doesn't always work, but it's the best we've got.
Never been to another country, have you? America has become quite a shithole. You keep on chanting "we're number one" though. How is crime? Poverty? Health care? Human rights? Civil liberties? Infant mortality? How do you compare to Norway? Germany? Switzerland? Iceland?