No. I’m arguing that someone choosing the ruler for someone else is immoral. I don’t have the right to do that to you and you don’t have the right to do it to me. 

Your premise is that it’s ok because everyone in the system agreed to it, but that only really applies at the beginning. I didn’t choose the current system.  I was born into it. I didn’t choose the current population of politicians. A small handful of people living in a few swing states did and the rest were gerrymandered in by carefully choosing their voters. 

I’m not trying to be pedantic. I fully agree that this form of government is a lot better than many other current systems in place around the world. But if I am going back to base principles my statement stands. 

 My hesitation on anarchy is that from history I observe humans living voluntarily, morally, minding their own business, eventually will get conquered and subjugated by immoral people perfectly willing to violate the non aggression principle who make themselves king. Do you see the opposite in history? Is the violence of subjugation always inherently in the system.

https://media.tenor.com/SpgoyUJrX-IAAAAC/monty-python-holy-grail.gif
 

 So your answer to my last question is "yes".

Define morality. 
Or, if you prefer, immoral.






 

 Philosophy, law, and religion have been grappling with that question for a long time but I’ll take a swing. 

For me personally, individual freedom is the highest good. Anything that increases it is moral and anything that decreases it or decreases it for others to increase your own is immoral. 

 "Morality" (from whatever direction it is studied/theorized from) 
Is behavior that promotes/provides cohesion for a group. 

Different groups/cultures arrive at differing concepts and systems. 

This is why pure ideologies that redefine morality in the context of a larger group tend to have a hard time.