

The purpose of my comment was kind of to call out the ridiculousness of the question being on the form, because if that broad definition is how were defining war criminals, then yes I think logically it would mean people funding the war crimes in any capacity would then be war criminals themselves. Again, by the definition assumed based on the question being on the questionnaire. When I read it my first thought was that I could probably not say no to that question as a US taxpayer
Personally I dont think aiding & abetting in any way, especially through involuntary taxation, is enough to define someone as a war criminal. But its fair to say we (collectively) arent doing enough to stop the bad shit our taxes are funding, which is true of any Israeli citizen right now as well.
People could refuse to pay their taxes and risk arrest, but I dont think thats an effective form of protest. Better to not be in prison and have a voice. But there would be a logical consistency in doing it
Its not really more futuristic, considering its a tried and true design.
I think you mean its just better designed