The problem here is that your reply is also demagoguery: no amount of taxes would be too much. No matter what the tax rate was, you could ask if folks like living in a modern society.
Very, very rarely do I find people who want no government or crippling taxes. The question, as you point out, becomes "how much is too much?"
So can we please stop describing other people's opinions in extreme ways? (I mean that for both sides)
I'm in favor of allocating a certain percentage of GDP to various governments. Say 15% to national, 5% to state, and 2% to local governments. Let the governments themselves decide how to collect it.
This does two things: it gives a real number instead of a bunch of arm-waving, and it puts government on a budget. Historical records show us that you're not getting much more than 20% out of a population anyway (and that's forgetting the Laffer curve)
You can always argue for more or less government and taxes. Both positions are perfectly fine. What's not fine is making this out to be socialism versus anarchy. It's really much more a conversation about finding compromise and being able to spend as much as you tax, instead of having politicians vote for programs nobody can afford and then pointing their fingers at the other guy when the bill comes due.
As for your question about living in a modern society, I'd argue we're paying about 20x more than we need to for these services, mainly because there's no choice involved. As governments continue to clamp down with taxes and more "help", there will be less and less choice, thereby making the multiplier even higher.
There's nothing wrong with believing that yes, we need these things, but no, this is not the way to have them. Doing the wrong thing with good intentions and a good goal is still the wrong thing. :)