link to original reddit post by /u/bikeclimb
Ethics is based on the question of "What can everyone do simultaneously?" This is a very simple summary of Kant's categorical imperative. Statists often tell me that they'd rather vote for someone to have power than pay someone who earned power by just action. If anyone can vote for anyone else to have power over everyone else, then anyone can claim power over everyone, which is impossible to implement. As soon as you vote for someone to have power over me, I can vote for someone else to have power over you, and my claim is just as rational as yours.
The only ethical path of power is for people to fully voluntarily pay those whom they trust for services of arbitration and enforcement of contracts. People may also opt out of paying anyone for these services and may attempt to settle all of their disputes using their own means. Statists usually say this will always lead to de facto states arising. I have yet to see a compelling argument for that.