Government is immoral because it violates self-ownership
I’ll never forget Bush vs. Kerry in 2004—my first presidential election as a voter. As a college sophomore diving deep into politics, I became passionate about understanding wealth inequality, poverty, healthcare, climate change, and education. The more I researched, the more confused I became: How could anyone be a Republican?
I concluded that the Republican Party consisted of two types of people:
When Bush won, it was jarring to realize that half the country fell into these categories. Were there really that many “bad” people in America? Frustrated, I began writing a book to mathematically prove why kindness and helping others was always the rational choice. Having just read The Prince, I wanted to create an anti-Machiavellian work addressing society’s problems. But I quickly became overwhelmed and abandoned the project.
This essay represents my second attempt, now from a more informed perspective. I’ve realized that part of my struggle was the fundamental inconsistency between socially liberal and fiscally liberal ideology. This four-part series reflects my philosophical journey from democratic socialism to free-market capitalism.
Two months after the 2004 election, I took macroeconomics. Seeing how effectively it explained the world, I declared economics as my major and began drifting toward fiscal conservatism while maintaining my socially liberal beliefs. At 23, I had never heard of the Libertarian Party, so I voted for Obama in 2008. While I disagreed with some of his fiscal policies, I felt social policies were more important and that Republicans were out of touch. However, neither party truly aligned with my core beliefs, and this frustration pushed me away from politics.
My journey toward libertarianism began a year later when a friend shared Money is the Root of All Evil from Atlas Shrugged. The passage resonated deeply and reignited my passion for understanding how the world works. This was my introduction to the core principles of libertarian philosophy. Over the next year, I continued exploring these ideas and eventually arrived at anarcho-capitalism—a stateless society built on self-ownership and non-aggression.
This four-part essay outlines the lessons I’ve learned:
Self-ownership is the simple yet profound idea that you own your body and your actions. This is the foundation of all other rights—if you do not own yourself, you cannot own anything else, nor can you be responsible for your actions.
Since our bodies belong to us, no one has the right to initiate force against us. This principle underpins socially liberal values including bodily autonomy, marriage equality, and anti-war sentiment. It leads directly to the non-aggression principle—the idea that force should never be initiated against another person. Self-defense is justified, but aggression is not.
This raises a fundamental question: When is it acceptable to violate another person’s self-ownership? The only logically consistent answer is never.
Property rights naturally extend from self-ownership. If I create something using my body and labor, I own it. When we specialize in modern society, we exchange our labor for money, which represents our time and effort. Without property rights, there is no incentive to create, innovate, or invest in anything long-term.
This is precisely why taxation is theft. When the government takes your money through taxes, it is taking the product of your labor under threat of violence. If you refuse to pay, you are fined, imprisoned, or worse. Even a 1% tax violates self-ownership because it involves force.
Since government exists through taxation, it requires violence to function. This is why a stateless society is the only way to achieve true self-ownership.
Consider this scenario: We pass a homeless man on the street. You suggest we buy him a meal. I decline. You encourage me again, but I still refuse. If you pull out a weapon and force me to comply, you’ve violated the non-aggression principle, regardless of your noble intentions.
This illustrates the immorality of government. The only difference is that government acts as the middleman, performing aggression (taxation) on your behalf. Whether you force me directly or government forces me on your behalf, the outcome is the same: my self-ownership has been violated.
If we accept taxation, we must also accept that some violence is permissible. But where do we draw the line? Who decides which rights matter most? The moment we accept any aggression, we open the door to subjectivity.
This is why zero aggression is the only consistent standard.
Governments require taxation to exist. Taxation is theft, enforced by violence. Supporting government means accepting that your right to self-ownership can be violated.
This essay ultimately boils down to one question: When is it acceptable to initiate force against another individual? If the answer is never, then government cannot exist.
In Part 2, I’ll explore how free markets outperform government in solving societal needs. If taxation is immoral, it’s essential to understand how we can function without it.
Consider this: We now judge historical figures like Washington and Jefferson not by the standards of their time, but by modern moral principles. What aspects of our current society will future generations condemn? The universal application of the non-aggression principle provides a timeless ethical standard. What moral principle guides your actions with such consistency?
Disclosure: The content herein is my own opinion and
should not be considered financial advice or recommendations.