If it was solely about security, that might be a plausible argument. If I were actually protected, then I'd be more open to paying the protection fee. The problem is that governments use their monopoly on violence to meddle in every other industry. As soon as the government starts dictating what products to produce, how much to produce, etc., which is what every tax code does, then everyone ends up less wealthy. And I would argue even basic things like security would be handled better by the market.

That's the reason, by the way, that Bitcoin outperforms fiat. It was designed by voluntary participants working to solve a problem. The fact that no government ever thought to limit the supply of their currency is glaring evidence that they fundamentally lack any serious concern for the wealth of nations.