Monetary inflation is an efficient but very specific type of tax, namely a tax on long term savings, not immediate consumption.
I believe that common health services (such as inoculation against contagious diseases) can be most efficiently provided and most beneficial under a monopoly. I prefer to live in a society where a minimal level of education can be expected - particularly if I rely on my peers to vote wisely. It is my experience that crime is minimal (or at least less apparent) in countries with greater welfare/taxes. I am not sure what law would mean without a regional monopoly. These are services for which I happily pay a monopoly: health, education, law. For when others benefit from these services, I benefit two-fold.
You're getting the cause and effect mixed up. Most countries have as much socialism as they can afford.
What cause/effect -- That a country first prioritizes services and then attempts to afford them with taxes? You may be right. It may be impossible to find an example country that does not waste money in economically irrational but populist adventures (Singapore?). But my assertion is that some countries attempt to pay for both their rational and populist services (N. Europe) while others such as the United States pass the bill on to the future/collapse.
I agree that borrow-and-spend is not preferable to tax-and-spend, but is that really the only two choices? The State has no moral right to steal from us OR promise to steal from us at a future date. It matters not
what the State intends to do with the stolen loot. If someone robs me and uses the money to buy me a cheeseburger, it's still robbery.