Individualists and anti-collectivists should be opposed to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran

Capitalism requires the defense of human life, and its consequences of liberty and property. War in a completely capitalist world would of course represent a failure of capitalism, but war in a partially capitalist (or a completely noncapitalist) world is the way such things are brought about. If you are assaulted, do you regard it as a failure of your morality that you were assaulted, or a failure of the morality of the one who assaulted you? Wars are not necessarily funded by involuntary taxes- they might be at the moment, but a whole lot of other things are too. You don't worry about a slow-growing cancer in your side when a rattlesnake just bit you, you reach for antivenom, even if it's in a room full of carcinogens. The US government, however harmful the taxes it raises are, has that antivenom; and 9/11 was one hell of a rattlesnake bite-- Obama might hate your freedom, but Osama hates it more. What I want, is for the wars against the people who sponsor Osama and co to be resolved quickly (see my debate "Leave Iraq immediately, and a while ago if possible") in order to remove that threat, and then we'll worry about the welfare state and it's taxes. Nothing about the hierarchical nature of militaries implies collectivism, any more than the hierarchical nature of corporations, orchestras, or Objectivist values themselves do. It simply implies that a military, to be effective, must act in concert to achieve the goals to which every individual that sponsors it (ideally anyway, though not at the moment) subscribe. To understand why I can support these wars, even though there is no time to switch the state to voluntary methods of funding them, you would have to note the different ethical nature of emergencies. My life is in more immediate danger from the enemies being fought in the middle east than it is from taxes. This doesn't mean I'll forgive the people who brought to pass the situation in which I had a choice between death and taxes (the framers of the 16th amendment among others)- it just means the matter will wait a little while. Put it this way- if we don't defend ourselves, at some point some nation out there conquers us. If we get conquered, we're gonna be taxed even more, for even longer. Patience is often prudent. If we had had better politicians long ago, we would have established a government that is voluntarily funded already, in some effective way (such as, for example, the one laid out in Rand's Virtue of Selfishness). And no, if taxes weren't the norm, the war's relative unpopularity would not bar voluntary funding. You know why? Because it's more popular among rich people :D. Pornography is often unpopular if you take an opinion poll, but it still finds a way to get funded. It's easier to get funding than it is to get a majority vote, for things that make sense anyway. Individuals will take such proactive measures, yes, but right now the government forbids them. So it's appeal to the government for the measures necessary and hope to fix the problem when you have more time, or go without the necessary measures and see what happens to ya.