NED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


(Note: The following rant was prompted, in large part, by a private
e-mail exchange I just had with a "limited government" statist. I
don't publicize private exchanges without the other person's
permission, and I doubt he'd give me permission. If he does, I'll
post the actual exchange. For now, this will have to do.)

. Statists' Aversion to Honesty

I believe that the use of violence is sometimes justified, but only
in defense against an aggressor. It's a pretty simple rule to
remember. But it logically implies things that almost everyone is
really scared of hearing, such as "Since most of what 'government'
does is initiate violence against innocent people, it is often
moral and justified to resist the agents of 'government' using any
means necessary, including deadly force." (Of course, that doesn't
mean it's a good idea on a practical level, or would accomplish
anything; the statement is about moral justification.)

Such a statement freaks almost everyone out, because they've been
trained to worship the state, to view obedience to politician
scribbles ("laws") as a moral imperative, and to view disobedience
as a sin. "Breaking the law"--even though all that means is
disobeying politicians--is assumed to be a horrible, anti-human,
evil thing to do. So when I spout what amounts to blasphemy to
statists, by saying that resisting "government" coercion is just as
moral as resisting any other thief or thug, a lot of people get
nervous and upset. It's as if I insulted their god. And that's
because I DID insult their god: the god called "government."

But the weirdness doesn't stop there. You see, while I'm as blunt
as can be about what I believe, and what I advocate, statists
almost NEVER openly admit what they want. For example, everything
the "government" spends, it first takes from people (via "taxes").
But those who support government welfare--which is a LOT of people--
hardly ever come out and say "I think money should be forcibly
taken from you to give to the poor." Even when I question them at
length, they go to great lengths to NOT admit, even to themselves,
that what they advocate is the initiation of violence (against you,
me, and everyone else). I can't count how many exchanges I've had
with people that go like this:

Me: "So you want government to finance this particular program?"
Statist: "Absolutely."
Me: "And what should happen to those who refuse to fund it?"
Statist: "Well, the government pays for it."
Me: "And where does it get the money?"
Statist: "From taxes."
Me: "And what should happen to those who don't pay?"
Statist: "Well, we all have to pay taxes."
Me: "I'm asking what it is that YOU advocate. What do YOU think
should be done to those who refuse to fund your idea?"
Statist: "Well, those who don't pay their taxes either have the IRS
go after them, or they get prosecuted."
Me: "And do you think that's a good thing?"
Statist: "Hey, that's just the way it is."
Me: "But is that the way it SHOULD be? For example, are YOU
advocating that force be used against ME if I refuse to pay for
what YOU want 'government' to do?"
Statist: "We all have to follow the law."
Me: "Would you approve of 'government' putting me in a cage if I
didn't pay for the 'government' programs you advocate?"
Statist: "Well, no. Not necessarily."
Me: "So I don't have to pay for it? I won't be forced?"
Statist: "Well, you have to pay your taxes."
And so on, ad infinitum.

Ironically, I find that this happens just as often when I talk to
many among the "limited government" crowd, too. I find that those
who say they love freedom, and say they believe in the principles
of libertarianism, and yet still believe some form of "government"
is necessary, try really hard NOT to admit that they advocate (in a
"limited" way) the initiation of violence. If, for example, someone
thinks that "government" has to exist to provide a defense system,
why can't that someone just come right out and say, "I believe you
should be forced to fund a defense system, whether you want to or
not"? It's obviously what they believe. So why can't they SAY it?
(Sometimes, if I grill someone long enough, he'll finally admit it.
But why does it almost require a water-board to get statists to say
what they advocate?) If you're opposed to "anarchy," then (by
definition) you're for "government," which is ALWAYS coercion. If
someone is so sure that that's the right thing to believe in, why
are they so reluctant to merely LITERALLY DESCRIBE what it is that
they support? Why won't they just SAY, "I want you to be forced to
fund what I want"?

Well, one reason they might not want to say that is because it
doesn't sound very nice. And that's because it ISN'T very nice.
That's why I don't advocate that anyone be forced to fund whatever
I think would be good for them. (And that makes me an anarchist--or
a "voluntaryist," to use a less scary word for it.) But why can't
the people who so vigorously and righteously insist that some
"government" is necessary--while vigorously rejecting "anarchy"
(lack of a ruling class)--be just as confident and bold when
describing what they actually advocate? Why do they cower, and hide
behind euphemisms and obfuscations?

Every once in a while a devout, hard-core statist DOES openly admit
what he wants. And even THAT makes other statists uncomfortable.
They don't want to hear the essence of their own belief system
spoken aloud, without any window dressing to make it look more
pleasant. Because, when you describe statism as what it literally
is--the belief that violence should be initiated against EVERYONE,
for their own good--it starts to sound as evil, insane, and
uncivilized as it is.



Larken Rose
larken@larkenrose.com