I see your argument and humbly ask to prove it?
Discussion
My moral compass tells me that it is fundamentally wrong for a group of people to be able to determine the life and property of an individual through elections (or birthright, etc.) and enforce this with violence. I cannot provide any proofs for this. Probably no one can.
However, there are enough anecdotes from history, the principle of non-aggression, the golden rule...
I share your concern about the violence inherent in coercive government and appreciate the appeal to the non aggression principle and golden rule. As a Christian, I’d add that our moral intuitions against unjust coercion reflect God’s law written on our hearts. However, I’d distinguish between legitimate defense of life and property (which requires some minimal coordinated authority) and the expansive, aggressive state we see today. Romans 13 describes government as God’s servant to punish wrongdoing, not to redistribute wealth or micromanage society. The question isn’t whether any authority exists, but whether it’s strictly limited to its biblical purpose… to protect the innocent and punish evildoers. Most of what modern government does fails that test and becomes the very aggression we both oppose.
I completely agree with you. My moral compass was given to me by God through my family and my intuition.
I also don't think there should be no leaders at all. In my opinion, each individual chooses their own leaders or not. A group of people should never impose a leader on an individual.
I am happy to follow a leader if they are worthy and have proven that they can solve problems morally and efficiently.
And if he no longer does it this way, I must have the right to say no.