Yes or no!?
First question: Is it moral to force others to give to the cause of your choice?
Second question: Is it moral for the government to force others to give to the cause of your choice?
Well, I would argue, it is misleading to insinuate that the two questions are logically and morally analogous, as is the strategy of the philosopher-interviewer in the below video.
Missing the difference does not strike me as the sign of a particularly good philosopher. It would appear rather to be an indication of political bias taking the place of meticulous philosophical inquiry.
The state is a modern technology whose emergence made and makes contemporary freedom possible.
Among the government's unique "social-technological" capabilities is a substantial reduction of violence in the territory under its protection, fostering an equally substantial increase of trust in societies populated mostly by people who are complete strangers to one another.
This is only one "social-technological" capability that no single individual can possibly provide to the community. This capability is unique to an institution - the state - which is radically distinct from an individual.
Corresponding to the state's unique features that single it out for special treatment as compared with individual citizens are specific rights that are therefore granted to it, but not to citizens.
In order to fulfil its unique functions, like peacemaking, the state requires resources; for which reason one works out procedures that allow the state to collect contributions ("taxes") and enforce this right -
in such a manner as to keep the state-technology-as-a-whole a worthwhile proposition to the population (which qualification points to many other issues that cannot be dealt with here, one of which being the fact that the taxation right is embedded in a host of other duties and restrictions to be honoured by government).
Individuals are not granted this same right, because they are incapable of providing the requisite return service.
Of course, if my neighbour were capable of providing the above helpful services offered by the state, we would have no reason to hesitate in devolving the same special rights to her as an individual rather than to a whole set of complicated institutions.
Thus, it appears to me, the discussion wilfully triggered in the video by means of the two above questions is not primarily one of morality, but one of empirical evidence. By which I mean: if my explanation of the unique capabilities of the state can be empirically corroborated and thus legitimately used as a premise, the moral issue evaporates. Sure, new puzzles present themselves; but probably less painful ones on balance than when mankind for some reason did not have the ability to create the social technology called the modern state.
Government is a difficult and dangerous instrument; we should dedicate our energy to keeping an eye on it (as citizens) and managing it knowledgeably (as politicians), instead of allowing ourselves to be sent into a maze of philosophical trickery and "gotcha questions."