More Government Planning Means More Threatened Force

“It must always be remembered that the greater and more intrusive the meddling and socially engineering hand of government in society is, the more political use of force is threatened and potentially used in human affairs.”
“As Ludwig von Mises once reminded us in his famous treatise Human Action,
It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action…. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom” (p. 719)”
“Of course, the most fundamental question to be asked is why and on what basis government can claim to command and control us, and thus assert its legitimacy to plan our lives and futures through its various social-engineering techniques.”
“In the American conception and tradition of liberty, it has been argued from Thomas Jefferson to Ayn Rand that individuals possess certain unalienable rights to their life, liberty, and property. That, by moral right, each individual owns himself; no others, either as private individuals or in any political capacity, can claim a higher source of right to direct that person’s life make him sacrifice any part of it against his voluntary will to serve others in society.”
“The Unanswered Question: By What Right?”
“The question to which I have rarely received a full answer is: By what moral principle or ethical claim can those holding political office in the government assert the authority to tax me to pay for someone else’s “free” medical service or “free” apartment in a government housing project?”
“Sometimes the response is, You owe it to your fellow man as a human being. But what if I choose not to recognize such a bill handed to me by the government in the form of taxes?”
“Does the government have the right to compel me to pay? The reply usually is, Yes. And my response to that is, What if I resist payment; does the government have the right to use its policing arm to arrest me, and if I resist arrest does it have the right to use even lethal force under certain circumstances?”
“Clearly, the government has no power in society if it is not ultimately backed up with the authority to use physical force, including lethal force if deemed warranted under the law.”
“But if that is the case, the question that I have virtually never had any answer to is: what makes little Johnny’s free visit to the doctor or Aunt Sally’s government-supplied apartment of higher moral worth and right than my freedom from imprisonment or murder at the hands of government agents?”
“Do little Johnny’s flu shot or Aunt Sally’s housing accommodations have a higher moral right than my freedom or life? On what basis is that moral decision made and on whose judgment that carries with it the power of a gun to determine my fate?”
“Answer: a rolling of the eyes, usually, and a look that often suggests, “Another political extremist.” Well, I think it is very modest and moderate to simply ask what makes one life more valuable than another in a setting of compulsory redistribution of wealth. Is there at least a carefully thought-out ethical rationale and political justification for denying someone his freedom or forcibly ending his life in the pursuit of a socially engineered coerced altruism?”

Austrian Economics & Public Policy–Restoring Freedom and Prosperity, Richard Ebeling, pp. 221-222.