Herbert Spencer’s Social Static is one of the earliest (1851!) and clearest non-consequentialist arguments in favor of the abolition of aggression (including that by the state)and thus the protection of liberty. The argument for the principle of equal liberty is worth consideration, but I will save it. For now I want to entice the seeker to consider what Spencer says is true if the principle of equal liberty is true.
“As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawery. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infinges no the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state–to relinquish its protection and to refuse paying towards its support.”
Prosection: “OBJECTION! Objection you honor! Men do nasty things with their liberty.”
Defense: “Are we better off giving some men who do nasty things with their liberty a monopoly on the right to do nasty things with their liberty or without anyone having a right to do nasty things with their liberty? The latter is obviously preferable. The latter shows government to be disqualified by the very concern for preventing nastiness. I rest my case.”
Currency debasement is fraud.
Enforcing a non-competitive monopoly is aggression.
Taxation is theft to any who does not voluntarily agree to it.