Government is immoral because it violates self-ownership
Note: This is a condensed version focusing on core arguments. For the full essay with personal journey and detailed examples, please see the complete version.
Self-ownership is the most fundamental human right. It means you own your body and actions. If consistently applied through the non-aggression principle, it logically requires a stateless society because government can only exist through taxation, which is theft.
Self-ownership means you have exclusive control over your own body and life. This is the foundation of all other rights—if you don’t own yourself, you cannot own anything else or be responsible for your actions.
Self-ownership underlies socially liberal positions: gay marriage, abortion rights, anti-war sentiment, opposition to military draft. The principle is simple: My body, my choice.
Self-ownership is achieved through the non-aggression principle: No one may initiate force against another person. You maintain the right to defend yourself, but initiating violence is never acceptable.
Self-ownership extends beyond your physical body to include the things you create with your labor—this is the foundation of property rights. Without clear property rights, there’s no incentive to build or create anything.
This leads to the fundamental question: When is it acceptable to violate another person’s self-ownership?
Answer: Never.
Any standard above zero becomes arbitrary. The moment you accept that one “right” can override self-ownership, anyone can justify their preferred right taking precedence. Someone might prioritize water rights, another food rights, another healthcare rights. Without a universal standard, the argument becomes subjective.
Consistency requires a universal principle applicable in every case. Self-ownership with zero aggression is the only consistent standard.
In modern society, labor is compensated with money. Taking someone’s money equals stealing their labor.
Taxation is the forced extraction of labor under threat of violence. Don’t pay taxes? You’re fined. Refuse to pay fines? You’re imprisoned. Resist imprisonment? You face escalating violence, ultimately death.
Government cannot exist without taxation. Therefore, everything government does first requires violating self-ownership.
Even a 1% tax rate violates self-ownership. Consider this analogy:
You want to buy a homeless man food. I decline. If you pull out a weapon to force my compliance, you’ve violated the non-aggression principle, regardless of your noble intentions.
Government works identically—it uses force (taxation) to fund programs. Whether you threaten me directly or government threatens me on your behalf, the result is the same: my self-ownership has been violated.
“The Social Contract”
“If you don’t like it, leave”
“Taxes pay for necessary services”
Government coercion creates discord between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties take turns wielding violence to force the other to comply with their preferred programs. Republicans force Democrats to fund military and drug wars. Democrats force Republicans to fund welfare and healthcare programs.
Maybe we should stop forcing people to pay for things they don’t support.
We judge historical figures by present moral standards, not their era’s cultural norms. What objective principle would have led you to reject slavery 200 years ago, pushing back against everyone in society? The universal application of non-aggression makes slavery as morally reprehensible then as now. What universal moral principle guides your actions with such consistency across time and cultures?
When someone says “I think the government should do X,” they’re really saying: “I think you should pay for X. If you disagree, the government will threaten you with prison. If you refuse prison, you’ll be forced. If you resist firmly enough, you’ll be killed.”
This may sound dramatic, but it’s logically accurate.
Government requires taxation. Taxation is theft enforced by violence. Therefore, supporting government means accepting violations of self-ownership.
The fundamental question: When is it acceptable to initiate force against another individual?
The only consistent answer: Never.
This means government cannot exist because taxation extracts labor under threat of force.
Continue to Part 2 for the economic argument showing why free markets outperform government.
Disclosure: The content herein is my own opinion and
should not be considered financial advice or recommendations.