"...They are allowing for murder and destruction on a global level..." While this is true, I'd say that it is not sufficiently precise. People who "pay" taxes are not "allowing" this destruction. "Allowing" implies that they have some kind of control over the money that is taken from them., and you know that is not the case.
The people who have money taken from them have a poor choice. They can cough up the money demanded from them by the psychos, or they can refuse, and face the consequences.
Either way, if they earn money in the market place, violence will ensue. The only thing that they can influence is whether the guns of the politicians will be pointed at them or some other poor bastard.
Call it what it is "..their taxes..." is just protection money paid to racketeers.
It's quite rational for people to hand over the money in order to pay off those that would otherwise attack them.
It's difficult to condemn a man who can only see these as his only options.
Most people are not familiar with game theory...... and how the state plays the "prisoner dilema" with them every day.
(I do not intend to seem like a pedant, but using phrases like "their taxes" and "their governments" has a kinda ring of inevitability about it. Y'know, as if people have taken ownership of or at least are willing to accept these things as their own. Yugh - creepy)!
Cowards
Are you saying that a guy, held at gunpoint in an alleyway, hands over his wallet is acting cowardly? (Even if the victim knows that some of his stolen money will likely be used to finance future violent behaviour).
Surely, most people have dependants. To refuse to hand over the wallet carries a high risk of death. To resist is likely to cause his dependants great future financial hardship.
To insist that this man is a coward seems to be quite a leap.
To make a judgement like that requires knowledge of the victim and his circumstances.
I'm just curious to learn on what is this judgement based. (I may not be following the logic here)