1. If morality is objective, then it is applicable to all individuals.
2. Government is an entity that is made up of individuals.
3. If it is wrong for an individual to take from one individual to give to to another, then it is wrong for a government to do it as well.
I expect most people will accept the premises, but most will reject the conclusion. Intuitively people will say that a private citizen running around demanding money from people in a neighborhood because he/she has been “protecting” them from bad guys is not a moral action. Yet, for some strange reason, it’s okay when government does it. People have been, in a way, indoctrinated to believe that government is unquestionably legitimate. For instance, last night was the State of the Union address. The importance is overrated. The president gets up in front of a room full of people in suits, some sitting in giant leather chairs, with millions watching on television. Yet, he does not say anything particularly of importance. There is nothing that is said that could not be said over the television in the privacy of the White House. The inauguration is another example of unnecessary prestige. It does not stop just at federal government, it goes all the way down to local governments. The rituals, and the teachings, and the intuitions all give appearance to government legitimacy, but government is no more legitimate than a vigilante extortionist. The premises to my argument are simple. They do not rely on any utilitarian, or deontological arguments of ethics. If something is moral, than the government is bound to the same morality as any individual, because the government is a group of individuals. To put it simply;
‘It is permissible for the state to prohibit some action if and only if it would be permissible for a private individual to use force to prevent or retaliate for that sort of action’.
I highly recommend, what is, in my opinion. the most important, and best book on anarchism. The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer (whom is, again, in my opinion, the best anarchist philosopher within the libertarian community). Here is an excerpt from the introduction:
My political philosophy is a form of anarchism. In my experience, most
people appear to be convinced that anarchism is obvious nonsense, an idea
that can be refuted inside of 30 seconds with minimal reflection. This was
roughly my attitude, before I knew anything about the theory. And it is also my
experience that those who harbor this attitude have no idea what anarchists
actually think–how anarchists think society should function or how they
respond to the 30-second objections. Anarchists face a catch-22: most people
will not give anarchists a serious hearing, because they are convinced at the
start that the position is crazy; they are convinced that the position is crazy,
because they do not understand it; and they do not understand it, because they
will not give it a serious hearing. I therefore ask the reader not to give up
reading this book merely because of its conclusion. The author is neither
stupid, nor crazy, nor evil; he has a reasoned account of how a stateless society
might function. I cannot promise that you will find the account ultimately
convincing. But it is very likely that you will find it to have been worth