... if there were no governments then who would protect you from thieves and robbers trying to get your money? ...
The urban dictionary has a definition of tax that seems close to the truth: "Giving money you don't have to people you don't know for a program you don't believe in." I think it stops short of being true because it uses the word "give". Taxes are taken, not given. If in doubt, reflect on payroll taxes "deducted at source".
Governments
are the entities that get most of my money, and since they take the money coercively it is hard not to view their actions as theft. The number of bogeyman thieves and robbers they deter with that money is unknowable, but governments certainly have not eliminated theft or robbery, so there's that.
It would be nice to have a choice of protection services without having to pay for the government version. It would be nice to be able to opt out altogether and deal with the consequences in one's own way. In short, I take no comfort in the "protection racket" view of government. I do take comfort in thinking that we are at a point in history where much of what we do as a society could be done voluntarily rather than coercively, using techniques such as crowd-funding. Change is in the air.
That said, I'm as wary of Jeff Berwick as anyone is, and I have no idea of the nature of his role in the Great Game. Posing as a perpetual traveler in order to avoid government shakedowns doesn't strike me as a good idea, but at least he's thinking about the issues.
