It’s not an invalid concept. Depends upon context, and it has rarely — though heroically when it has been — been used properly. So, in that vein, this goes out to a very few who will grasp exactly what I’m talking about pretty shortly. It’s that way: you already know where I’m going, or you might as well stop reading.
The state, like religion, is pernicious in its superiority. That italicized concept is key; for, the implication is that everything that stands against it is inferior in the context of stature, which, for those still reading but who still don’t follow, means: moral authority. If you are dealing with someone who regards you equivalent to themselves — namely, a subject of the state — then it is inevitable you will experience irreconcilable differences: you — if you’re an individualist — are operating from a different set of premises.
I speak from much experience, having had many run-ins with the authorities. A man of my "attitude" can never explain to someone who doesn’t share my values.
Grasp this, the view I contend with, and remember it: I am — in such eyes — subordinate to the state as if it were a law of nature. That’s the premise I have to deal with; with no practical vs. moral distinction — which I could find palatable. Accordingly: each and every mention of mine that implicates moral wrongdoing on the part of the state is mere redundancy: I repeat myself endlessly and am but a bore; for I bring it up often, as I am a man who produces with little to no thought of the state and must therefore of necessity come in conflict with its non producers (but nonetheless powerful) often. Worse: you may in fact be drunk, but cause & effect is guaranteed to be reversed every time.
It’s deaf ears. It’s Pointless.