Addressing the Common Defenses of Government Force

Introduction

This document examines the logical progression of arguments commonly made to defend government authority and taxation. Each position is analyzed to show where the reasoning encounters difficulties, with the goal of finding a consistent ethical framework we can both accept.

The Logical Flow and Its Problems

The Argument: Since theft is defined as illegal taking of property, and taxation is legal, taxation cannot be theft by definition.

The Problem: This makes legality the determining factor of morality. The same logic would make slavery moral when it was legal, or make any government action automatically ethical simply because that government declares it legal.

If a plantation owner legally owned slaves, would that make slavery morally acceptable? Most people intuitively reject this - we recognize that legal categories and moral categories are different things.

The Deeper Issue: This position is circular - it says government actions are legitimate because the government says they're legitimate. We need a way to evaluate whether laws themselves are just.

The Argument: By working, buying, and selling goods, people demonstrate consent to the tax system that supports the infrastructure enabling commerce.

The Problem: This makes consent meaningless. By this logic:

True consent requires a genuine alternative and explicit agreement. Economic activity is necessary for survival - it cannot constitute political consent any more than breathing constitutes consent to local air pollution policies.

The Deeper Issue: If someone never voted and explicitly rejects government authority, how can their mere existence constitute agreement?

Position 3: "You Have a Choice - You Can Leave"

The Argument: Since people can emigrate to other countries, they're not truly forced to accept any particular government.

The Problem: This is the same logic as saying:

Having options under threat doesn't constitute genuine choice. Moreover, this argument assumes governments legitimately own all the territory they claim - but how did they acquire this ownership? Most government land was never homesteaded or purchased, but simply claimed through conquest.

The Deeper Issue: Why should the default assumption be that you must leave rather than that the system must justify its authority over you?

The Argument: Any society needs rules and enforcement mechanisms, so some authority must exist to make and enforce laws.

The Problem: This conflates law with legislation. Rules can emerge organically (like language) or through voluntary agreements (like contracts) without requiring a monopoly on force.

Consider international disputes - when companies from different countries have conflicts, they resolve them through arbitration without a world government. The existence of multiple legal systems that interact peacefully proves that monopolistic violence isn't necessary for order.

The Deeper Issue: The need for dispute resolution doesn't automatically justify giving some people the right to rule others without their consent.

The Interesting Development: Agreement on Voluntary Solutions

At this point in many discussions, something fascinating happens. When presented with the idea of opt-in government services - where people voluntarily pay for what they want and can opt out of what they don't - there's often immediate agreement.

"Actually, that sounds reasonable. People could choose which services they want, pay for what they use, and opt out of programs they don't support."

This agreement reveals something important: voluntary solutions are recognized as superior even by those who initially defended coercion. If voluntary alternatives work, why is force necessary?

The Retreat to Utilitarian Arguments

After agreeing that voluntary systems could work, the conversation often shifts to practical concerns:

"If This Is So Good, Why Hasn't Anyone Implemented It?"

The Response: The same could be asked about slavery abolition for thousands of years. Politicians resist voluntary systems because they lose power and funding. The question isn't why it hasn't been tried, but why it shouldn't be tried.

"Private Companies Would Pay Taxes Too"

The Response: Only if they choose government services. A private fire department using its own water source wouldn't need to pay for government water infrastructure. The opt-out applies to businesses too.

"It Might Cost More Than Taxes"

The Response: This ignores several factors:

Even if private services cost more for some people, why shouldn't they have the choice to pay more for better service, or pay less for basic service?

"Important Programs Might Be Underfunded"

The Response: If people won't voluntarily fund something, what makes us think it's actually important to them? This argument assumes some authority knows better than individuals what they need.

It also leads to a slippery slope - if people can't choose their own priorities for public services, why can they choose their own food, entertainment, careers, or anything else? Where does this paternalistic logic stop?

The Fundamental Question

If all the practical arguments for coercive government can be addressed through voluntary alternatives, we're left with a more basic question:

What gives some people the right to be born with authority over others?

Most people agree that individuals should have control over their own lives and property. We don't accept that parents own their adult children, or that older siblings can tax younger ones, or that smart people can force less intelligent people to fund their projects.

So where does the authority come from? What principle justifies some humans having the right to:

If you reject the earlier justifications (legality, implied consent, "choice" to leave, necessity), what's left?

The Challenge: Can you articulate a principle that grants this authority without:

The Austrian/libertarian position can trace its reasoning from basic logical principles (law of identity) through self-ownership and property rights to voluntary exchange and the non-aggression principle. Each step follows logically from the previous one.

Can the same be done for the position that some people are born with legitimate authority over others?

This isn't asked to be difficult, but because consistent principles matter. If we can't articulate why governmental authority is legitimate in a way that doesn't also justify other forms of domination we reject, perhaps it's worth reconsidering the whole framework.

Conclusion

The goal isn't to eliminate rules or cooperation, but to base them on voluntary agreement rather than imposed authority. Every human relationship - from marriage to business partnerships to friendships - works better with consent than coercion.

The question is whether political relationships should be the one exception to this principle, and if so, why.