I imagine most government healthcare advocates have the best of intentions, but it’s hard to view such individuals as noble and caring when their main (and often only) proposition to help the poor is to force other people to do it.
The one (and probably only) criticism which communists are correct in making is that simply claiming or sectioning areas does not create property. Rothbard also took this stance, and it is the logical stance stemming from Lockean property concepts, self-ownership, etc: Production is the basis of rightful ownership, for how can someone own something which has not been produced, or has not been “touched” by labor? I have had discussions with advocates of capitalism who do not follow through with this. They often believe simply declaring something is yours makes it true with no labor (when it comes to land), but this makes no sense. It’s the same logic as the state claiming open expanses are their “jurisdiction.” More of a continuation of feudalism than Lockean property rights.
Whether you say “capitalists” or “workers” are responsible for our amenities, if you say you “deserve” a “Comfortable life,” and proceed to name anything beyond picking wild berries or your own vegetables (things you yourself labor to create, etc.), then you are saying you deserve the product of other people’s labor.
A popular rationalization for “immigration control” is a coupling of the reality that the State currently “taxes” (forces/extorts) people to pay for “welfare,” roadways, etc., and the chance (which proponents claim is fact) that “immigrants” “will vote to take your freedoms away.” This carries the linguistic baggage of layer upon layer of delusion, but in the end it either boils down to the State being rightful owner of all property, or at least acting as if it were, and violently controlling everyone and their property.
A State in theory is, or has, a “monopoly on force,” but it’s more accurate to simply call it a “monopolist,” in that they think and act as if they are a “monopoly on force,” the only ones entitled to enforce rights, but can never actually attain this “monopoly.”
“Badges don’t grant extra rights.” This is the CopBlock slogan, but it’s not just a slogan, it’s the truth of the matter, and essentially the entirety of the (ethical) anarchist argument. The underlying belief is “authority,” that someone has the right to rule you.
The purported differences on the “statist” or “authoritarian” side are merely variances in propaganda and state intrusion; all states intrude in “the market” by nature/definition, so all “cross overs” into that realm (statism) are fundamentally the same in that they advocate a violent monopoly forcing itself on everyone else.
One aspect of the belief in “Authority” is the idea that one has a moral obligation to disregard their own morals/conscience. That comes naturally with the belief that someone else has the right to rule you.