The U.S. government is trillions of dollars large and continuously growing. Its every action sends shock waves of unintended consequences throughout our lives.With more than 700 bases worldwide, the government has the military might to make explosions rain down on any location on Earth and has stockpiled enough weapons to destroy the planet several times over.The political process — competing theories on how to tame this beast — is naturally a subject of much disagreement.But it is rarely discussed how often we agree on other matters. Perhaps — with the clarity of good definitions — it will be possible to achieve almost universal agreement in politics as well.For instance, a charity can be defined as aid voluntarily given to those in need. Though we may criticize the means of certain charitable organizations, virtually everyone regards charity as a noble end in and of itself.Almost all rightly condemn terrorism — the calculated use of violence against unarmed civilians to attain political or religious goals through intimidation and coercion.Violence is only appropriate in self-defense, and it is never appropriate to initiate force. We knew this in kindergarten when we told the teacher the other kid hit us first.Though some may occasionally sympathize with the ends of some terrorists, such as William Wallace or the Old Testament’s Joshua, terrorism is almost universally condemned.Even supporters of al-Qaida don’t argue that it’s moral to initiate force. They argue the U.S. attacked first.Americans rightly unite in criticizing them. The ends don’t justify the means.By that same logic, almost all would agree there would be something dreadfully wrong with a charity using terrorism to collect its money. If United Way’s solicitors went door-to-door wearing explosive vests, they might make more money — and thus be able to help more people — but no respectable person would endorse this strategy.Even if the United Way provided the “donators” with a few benefits and gave them some say on how their violently expropriated “donations” were to be used, this intimidation would still match the definition of terrorism and would still be strongly condemned by almost any observer.And yet, when our theoretical United Way goes by “the government,” our moral certainty falls to pieces.There is no reason for a moral judgment to change after the subject is renamed.This is not extremist language. This is simply applying the definition.All government action is against unarmed civilians, enforced with the threat of violence and done to achieve a political goal.All governments match the very definition of terrorist entities.Yes, the needy occasionally benefit from their actions, and we get a largely disregarded say in how our money is spent.But this doesn’t change the fact that governments are, by definition, terrorist organizations.Terrorists run our courtrooms, direct our police, pay our teachers, subsidize our media and command the largest military in the world’s history.Through price controls, subsidies, legal tender laws and a myriad of regulations, these terrorists control our economy.And because they can export the costs of warfare onto the taxpayer, these terrorists have the means to wage any war they wish.This is the result of giving a government a legal monopoly on the initiation of the use of force.Initiating the use of force is never a moral choice. We should be able to agree on this.The right-wing tries to reform the government into an abusive father. The left-wing tries to reform the government into a meddling mother.It is time we lose the illusion of control and grow up. Daniel Morgan is a 21-year-old economics junior from Baton Rouge.—-Contact Daniel Morgan at [email protected]