1. The rent is negotiable. Tax is not. Before I pay the rent, I explicitly agree to it and can negotiate a duration to ensure that it does not rise tomorrow by

1. The rent is negotiable. Tax is not. Before I pay the rent, I explicitly agree to it and can negotiate a duration to ensure that it does not rise tomorrow by 100%. And I can avoid it altogether. Tax I have to pay first, talk about second. And it's not avoidable. Also, if I don't pay the rent because the property owner has failed his obligations, I can negotiate with other people to ostracize him, so he will have to improve his behaviour (voluntarily), or lose customers. If then I fail to clear the property, then he can negotiate with others to ostracize me, or I will have nothing to eat and drink. All of this is possible without violence, but not possible when anyone can go to court and relatively cheaply hire all prisons, police and bureaucracy (very well paid by all taxpayers, not by actual users). So no, it's not moral to have a well-funded lawsuit by a private party because it replaces negotiation with force. Unless this private party has no choice by do so to protect itself from an equal threat from counter-party. In which case at least one or both of them are not moral agents because they have little choice. Only the court has choice not to enforce any ruling, so the court is a moral agent and can be said to be moral or immoral.