You see no difference between ads that ask you to buy something and a government that uses torture, murder, mind control, propaganda, and fear to carry out the destruction of free will of its citizens?
Ok.
> it's even more invasive and everywhere.
Yes, being sent to labor camps to work to death is just as invasive as having Google know that I like video games.
And I don't compare labour camps with advertising.
I compare governments ads "work harder for your country" and private ads "you look ugly, you should buy some of our makeup". Private ads are all about destroying free will too, that's exactly their point.
When you reached the age of majority, you gave consent by continuing to live here.
(And if you think consent requires words, and not merely actions, try wordlessly walking out of a convenience store with a package of slim jims you didn't pay for.)
However, I agree; taxation is necessary for government to exist. I'm also not an anarchist. I see taxation as a necessary evil, but I refuse to not call it what it is. Like the case with most (all) necessary evils, I consider it a moral obligation to advocate for it's conservative application. So, sorry you find it offensive that I want the government to steal less of your labor. I hold no grudges towards people that would like to see their labor partitioned towards public works to whatever extent they see fit, but I maintain coercion is immoral.
Lastly, the "just move argument" is a real gem. "Don't like police brutality? just move." Talk about letting your privilege show...
I'm glad you agree that taxation is necessary for government to exist. Some day, I hope you'll come around to doing away with silly word games like "it's theft". Because it isn't.
What do you think would happen if we could allocate our tax dollars personally however we see fit? With access to different public "services" being granted accordingly?
How many of the western allies did just that during the cold war?