And in the system I advocate, you could say that, while in the system you defend, you cannot. Or you can, but it wont fly, of course. Find a way to refuse (difficult in europe, where the money is nearly always taxed before you get it) and you will eventually see why we say the power of the state grows out of the barrel of the gun.
I think the problem is that you have a world view conflict here:
Libertarians tend to view taxes as armed robbery.
Statists tend to view taxes as paying the bills of society.
Most libertarians wouldn't think taking a pair of shoes from a store without paying for it was just or reasonable, but when it comes to paying the bills for society, it suddenly becomes just and reasonable to take without paying. Most often this double-standard is explained by claiming that society's bills are unjust or immoral (sometimes they legitimately are). Libertarians may dismiss the bills as incurred by "parasites" who feed off of the "good" people. Most often, this is a failure to understand that the majority of people maintain a difference of opinion on what a legitimate expense for the state is.
Europeans, for example, seem to believe that making sure people don't starve is a fundamental duty of the state. This may seem insane to most libertarians, you're taking money from good people and giving it to people who can't even feed themselves. However, Europeans think they have good reasons to believe that is a legitimate expense. Consider for a moment that they have a longer history than America has, and it has been filled with more famines, wars and death than most Americans are even going to be aware of. For instance, France knows what happens when too many people are left to go hungry. I'm sure their neighbours have learned equally costly lessons. Thus is they believe that it is the duty of the state to maintain a stable society, and that a stable society is fundamental to having a prosperous society, then it clearly must be a duty of the state to feed the people (at least to some minimum extent).
On the otherhand, I do understand the Libertarian argument that you're taking the fruits of someone's labour to pay for society. But I fail to see how it's any different than paying any other shareholder his fair share of the profits. It is at least as legitimate to look at taxes as simply the cost of a prosperous society. The libertarian argument that it is forced through the barrel of gun fails for me, because the payment of any bill is ultimately enforced through the barrel of a gun. If you take things, like the before mentioned shoes, and refuse to pay for them, you will go to jail. Only the anarchists who dispute the very idea that property can be owned can use that argument and remain self-consistent.