Actually, both. Firstly, I don't think that coercive funding is ever moral. This means that the only moral way of funding Government is voluntary taxation. Thi

Actually, both. Firstly, I don't think that coercive funding is ever moral. This means that the only moral way of funding Government is voluntary taxation. This is my primary objection - even if you kept all the current State apparatus intact, it would be a tremendous improvement to simply stop coercing people into funding it. Secondly, I think the current level of taxation is outrageous, and that State socialiam (as separate from charitable safety nets) is a monstrous moral evil. Ditto the massive military expenditure in most countries - it has precious little to do with legitimate national defence in most cases. Thirdly, restricting the scope of Government vastly reduces the scope for corruption. We most certainly have voting with money now, and the votes of the rich and "connected" are counted for a lot more than those of the plebs. It's not so much a case of wanting to pay for what I think is worth paying for, as it's a case of wanting Government to be limited to a very particular set of functions, and to be funded in a way that doesn't involve threatening or practising violence against people. There's more information about the Objectivist position on Government funding here: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4314-government-financing-in-a-free-society http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4314-gove... Thanks for discussing this, by the way. My original comment is attracting the usual flurry of down votes, which I've observed is the normal response on HN for criticising compulsory taxation, Apple, or socialism. Not necessarily in that order ;-)