This is just a variant of the standard social contract argument, and can be used to justify almost anything. “If you dont like being taxed to fund socialized health care, you are free to leave”.
Sorry. I was assuming you were aware of the Objectivist notion of a proper government. In essence, the only moral justification for government is the protection of individual rights, which means protection against the initiation of force, or fraud. In this regard, the three proper functions of a government are a military to protect against foreign invaders, a police force to protect against internal criminals, and a law court to protect contractural arrangements and adjudicate criminal activities and settle personal disputes according to objective law.
These principles severely limit the actions of a government, and of necessity the government is delegated by its citizens the sole right to use retaliatory force. For a much more thorough and detailed presentation, see Ayn Rand’s “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
If someone signs a contract with me and then later goes against the terms in an attempt to screw me over, I surely have the moral right to protect myself and retaliate if necessary. Since the government’s claim to monopoly use of force overrules my right to retalitate, it follows that the government is hence charged with the task of retaliating on my behalf.. If it refuses to do so unless I pay it, I can think of no moral reason why I shouldn’t instead choose to use some kind of private retaliation.
You might want to consider breaking the law as being a moral reason.
People should not have to pay in order to exercise their rights.
But rights are not some out-of-context absolute. The very concept of rights arises only in a social context, defining the proper means of how men relate to each other, through their actions. We “pay” for those rights every time we limit our actions to those actions which are proper in regard to others. We “pay” for those rights when we choose to use reason rather than force. I see no reason why we should not “pay,” as a matter of principle, for the services which we choose to exercise in order to protect our rights. If you do not “pay” for the military, the consequences are the possibility of losing your rights to a foreign power. If you do not “pay” for the police, the consequences are the possibility of losing your property or life to a criminal. If you do not “pay” for contractural insurance, the consequences are the possibility that your agreement will not be enforced. All of these payments are voluntary “pay,” in one form or another, and the consequences which might possibly ensue from failure to “pay” are clear. You can decide.
