I like Rothbard’s position https://mises.org/library/living-state-run-world that it is morally permissible to work for the government in an industry that has been monopolized and would exist in the free market. I would like that to be true, because otherwise the State has the ability to make it immoral to practice certain trades or it is entirely permissible to work in an artificial field supported entirely by the State’s existence. But the NAP doesn’t care what I would like, and it doesn’t care really what is moral; it only cares what is initiation of force. In my opinion, a Rothbard approved State job is morally distinct from taking a State job that is not artificially monopolized. But that has nothing to do with whether or not it violates the NAP. Lots of things I don’t like violate the NAP, and unless you are a very specific type of heinous individual lots of things you don’t like violate the NAP too.
Clearly, you can’t violate the NAP just because someone is paying you, so government jobs that are inherently NAP violations, or whose functions involve initiatory force are always NAP violations. Therefore it always violates the NAP to be a cop, tax collector (including positions like DMV clerks and other licensing bureaus), or zoning enforcement agent.
Working for the State is: 1) doing work and 2) taking FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) and other assets from the State. Work can be either a NAP violation or not a NAP violation. If the particular position involves no NAP violations, then the pertinent issue is whether or not it violates the NAP to accept FRNs and other assets from the State.
The State is a group of people who acquire everything they possess, at least in their capacity as a member of this gang, via theft. But it is not always a NAP violation to take FRNs from the State. Some DMVs only take paper FRNs for certain transactions. So if you a DMV agent a $20 and a $10 and they hand you back $5 you are literally taking money from State, but it is obvious why this isn’t a NAP violation. You are very literally getting your own FRNs back. If you have a W-2 job then every paycheck the IRS steals some of you FRNs and at the beginning of the next year it sometimes finds that it took more of your FRNs than it decided you “owe” it, so it sends you the balance. The only difference between this and the previous example is timing. The NAP says nothing about timing other than that you can’t initiate. The NAP does not set up a statute of limitations or commingling requirements. With change from a State cashier, the FRNs are a reduction in what is being stolen from you, but they are not literally the same FRNs the state agents took from you because FRNs are fungible. With a zero or net payor tax refund, the FRNs are a reduction in what is being stolen from you.
But there is no bowl of cash somewhere that State agents put in and take out FRNs as they are stolen from and returned to you. What actually exists is an accumulation of everything that the state agents stole from everyone with the currency that was inflated into existence, and this is where the FRNs for your income tax refund come from. Just like the FRNs from your change at the DMV come from the register full of FRNs stolen from other people at the DMV. This is not stealing because the particular FRNs that were stolen from a particular person are non-identifiable and fungible. To say otherwise would mean that 1) you are responsible for recording the serial number of the FRNs you use to “pay” all taxes and 2) whoever ends up with those specific FRNs from circulation is guilty of possession of stolen property and must return them to anyone who paid those specific FRNs in taxes. This is absurd. When you receive FRNs from the State in a lesser or equal amount than they have stolen from you, you are receiving your own property back. If you are not a net tax victim, you are still overwhelmingly likely a net State victim. The insolvency of an aggressor is not the victim’s problem when they seek restitution.
If “State property” is identifiable to a specific rightful owner, then it would be theft to take it in restitution because the rightful owner does not owe you restitution- the State does. Otherwise, it is not inherently a NAP violation to take any “State property” in restitution for thefts or other aggressions that it has committed against you.
Monopolizing an industry is just one way in which the State can aggress against you, and so you can of course claim restitution in the form of a job in that industry if you so choose. I also think that it is unclear when an industry has been monopolized. If it is technically legal to operate in competition with the State agents, but they set artificial price floors
that do not apply to themselves, regulations that they do not follow themselves, or even just give the product away to the point where it is creates an artificial price ceiling, has that industry been monopolized? Due to this unclarity I hesitate to draw this line.
It is not a NAP violation to take “State property” without otherwise violation the NAP. However, the fact that something is not a NAP violation does not make it moral or free from strategic problems.