I don’t think taxing is theft, nor seizure (with compensation).
The definition I use for the government is that it’s the expression of our agreement to live in a society, it is that designated group who administers the electrical grid…and that designated group doesn’t live with air, it needs resources. The devil is in the details, but, in principle, paying taxes is justified.

So, if I have to pay taxes, I don’t want to pay taxes to enrich somebody already rich through my government as a proxy, I prefer to pay taxes so that the public knowledge is guaranteed to stay public, and free software is a special instance of it.

I see the tax as an averaged cost per person of our common and current standard of civility. There’s no way I can interpret it as a theft from this perspective. On a practical level, taxes might be misused, that’s what has to be monitored by the taxpayers, and, in part, that’s what I’m saying in this blog entry: using taxes to pay licenses for using proprietary software (when the free software alternatives exist) is not only dumb but, in practice, a theft also.

Anyway, USING free software is not just economically sustainable, but obviously more sustainable than any other alternative, while MAKING it is not obviously sustainable. Exactly like (good) education, or wikipedia. They should be supported through taxes if we expect coherent results with a positive impact on society.

No. Governments are all economically unsustainable in practice, since the only way governments acquire services or capital is through theft (AKA taxes or seizure). A government that was economically sustainable would have to be based on the true consent of the governed; thus governments as we know them would not exist.

>> Is your local economist economically viable?

Yes, but he prescribes to the Austrian school of economics.