Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite - Leftists reframe the question "Why do you need that money?" when the one we should be asking is "Why is the state entitled to it?"
Because very often the answer is "the state enabled you to earn that money in the first place, moving things on its roads, and employing workers educated by its school system, while under the protection of its police force and fire service"
I find offering the option quite appealing, in the sense that it would hold government strictly to account if it annoys sufficiently large minorities to warrant large splits.
But what the people opposing taxes often tends to forget is that if you want to argue that society should be organized in a fully voluntary way, then the rest of society don't owe you access to any of their public services either if you're not prepared to agree to their terms for interacting with you.
If someone is ok with taking the consequences of that, then, hey, let them, but in my experience the moment you point out the likely consequences, there is a tendency to start crying about how unfair it would be when other people want to exercise their freedoms to refuse to deal with someone not prepared to pay their share. In other words, most of this boils down to wanting to be free to pick and choose how they interact with wider society, without wanting the rest of society to be able to pick and choose how to interact with them.