Interesting. And, I regret to say, a good segue. Sorry.
He's suing God for "Making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing 'widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants.'"
If his God is Caesar, (the State) then he's certainly suing the correct entity. But if he believes he is suing the omnipotent, all-good creator of the universe, I think he's slightly confused. Death, violence and terror are the domain of coercive, tax-based government. Mercy, kindness, forbearance, long-suffering, charity and justice are of God and his followers. The two dominions are always juxtaposed, by their respective natures.
I don't think God believes that having men forcing (at gunpoint, ultimately) other men to surrender the fruits of their labor (even for a good end) is justifiable. It reeks of consequentialism.
To believe that taxation qua forcibly depriving another of their property is necessary because of fallen human nature is to say that taxation is an evil that you can justifiably intend in itself, not an evil you may merely allow. (Unless, in some twisted way, one considers being forced to surrender that which belongs to you a "good?") Many do consider it a "good. "
Can taxation be compared to a painful medicine that benefits an ailing body politic? Is it like a lancet, which causes pain while draining an abscess, thereby benefiting the whole body? No.
First, the body politic is not one leviathan conglomeration of humanity. It is a conglomeration of men with power and and men who allow it to have certain powers (which the men with power invariably enhance and abuse.)
Second, the ailment afflicting any body politic is sin. The nature of the body politic (fallen human nature) is sinful. However, all sin is individual. Unless one believes that force can change human nature, one can only treat the symptoms of the illness. Some of these symptoms (individual sins) are actions that violate the rights of other individuals. Anyone can, in theory and practice, justly prevent or correct such violations. The state, in practice, has proven itself incapable.
Third, medical care must be voluntary. Even the state legal system recognizes this: a man may refuse medical assistance while he is still conscious. If he lapses into unconsciousness, it is considered consent for treatment. Do any of you consider yourselves unconscious? If so, do you think that those in power are somehow magically more conscious than you, now that they are in possession of power?
Can one compare taxation to commandeering another person's property, in a grave extreme, to escape harm? (Robbers, for example?) Certainly, one may morally commandeer a vehicle to escape from people who wish to unjustly kill you. Is this at all a good comparison, however? It would be a mistake to think that this is a Hobbesian world in which we live, where one must lock one's doors, because failure to do so would mean someone would doubtless enter your house and deprive you of life and property. Somehow, I don't think that a mere common robber could deprive me of half my annual income. It takes a special kind of robber to do that. One with a pretentious claim to moral legitimacy. One who says he's taking my property for a good cause, and if I don't comply, he will kill me or ruin my life. Even though I may give 50% of the contents of my wallet to a man with a gun stuck in in my ribs, and though he assures me he will do good things with my money, it does not justify his doing it. Does it?
The fact is, we do not live in a world where it is continually necessary to take from others to escape dire evil. In fact, a good many of the evils we suffer come from believing that we do live in such a world. Such a world view is paranoid in its truest sense. To live in such paranoia is to really a possess a cynical view on human nature, whether this cynicism is deliberately possessed or not.
Coercive government is not a part of true human nature. It is merely a symptom of fallen human nature. It is, as Augustine believed, the result of sin. Anyone can treat the manifested symptoms of fallen human nature, when manifested in acts against the life, liberty and property of human beings sharing an equal nature. One can only correct the underlying cause of sin by voluntary means. The coercive state isn't about "voluntary." At all. It merely considers itself (and is considered by its supporters) as an impartial rectifier of the symptoms, and sometimes the "causes," of fallen human nature. It isn't impartial. And it has no serious incentive to be impartial. The coercive state is partial to itself, and it perennially violates the rights of others in order to give itself partial treatment. Individuals do have incentive to be partial to others. (Christ commanded it, in fact.) But in some cases, individuals have the right to deny others from pursuing an injustice against another human being: (self-defense against rape or arson, recovering stolen goods on one's own.) There is no reason why a set of men chosen by 51% of a population have some God-given proprietary claim on the administration of justice. Especially when it has rendered such a laughable claim null and void through its patent lack of administering true justice.