Government is immoral

Is government moral? To answer that question requires us to look at what is government and morality. Government can be defined as an organization that maintains a monopoly on a perceived rightful claim to use force in a fixed geographic area. In actual practice that means a group of humans that rules over other humans, ruling meaning to exercise the initiation of force or threats of force for social control or order. But, what is morality? Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. So, what constitutes good or bad behavior or right or wrong? I argue here that the initiation of physical force or threats of physical force constitute bad behavior. When in kindergarten or as a child we learned this concept. We were taught that hitting people and taking their stuff is wrong because it violates the rights and liberty of another and leads to bad outcomes. We were never taught that there is an exception if I work for government. The very definition of government in that it initiates force or threats of force to attempt to create social order and utilitarian outcomes is the reason it lacks morality. The most obvious example of this is how governments amass resources though taxation or forceful confiscation of property from those it rules over. Some may argue that a social contract exists, but there are problems with the idea of the social contract. One is that it is an invalid form of contract as others though perhaps in most modern nations contract on behalf of others who disagree though democratic or republican means(the concepts of governments, not the political parties). This doesn't follow as one cannot enter into contracts for another without some other consent involved. I can't buy a house and make you pay for it. The idea of the social contract misunderstands the nature of political power. The state is not a voluntary association or club as its hallmark is the use of force or threats of force for compliance. There is also no methodology to withdraw consent from governments all together in a society as it is now. This lack of a true voluntary interaction is another hallmark of the immorality of the state. One may argue that government is necessary for a functioning world. This is argued despite the fact that most human interactions require voluntary cooperation and force is damaging to those relationships. There is no evidence that a lack of a state would create poor outcomes. The only poor outcomes would be a disorderly establishment of the state after its long stood existence. A practical transition to voluntary associations and societies would have to take place. If a peaceful person condemns all aggressive wars by one country against another, he is understood and applauded by the overwhelming majority of the people. But, when the same peaceful person condemns all aggressive actions by the state against its own citizens, he or she is misunderstood and repudiated by almost all of his fellow citizens. Why is this? Why does the person recognize one forceful action as being immoral but not the other? It is conditioning to accept what the state does as just and right without question or is something else at play? The fact is it is a well understood fundamental tenet of any system of morality that no person has a moral right to initiate coercive action against another person. Given that government is immoral. I would ask con to consider the following: 1) Why does the right to initiate force exist for the state and not individual citizens? 2) Wouldn't the ability to use force legitimately mean that the state has a higher claim over an individual that that individual does? 3) Have humans ever has a natural right to initiate force against other humans? 4) If the answer to #3 above is no then, how does one delegate a right one does not have? I hold that if one honestly answers those questions you can only come to the consensus that governments are immoral.