10 MORE favorite statist arguments

10 min read

Deviation Actions

TerraDraca's avatar
By
Published:
2.5K Views
Why?  Because there's just too many good ones to fit into the first!

10. "Well I went through X government program and it worked fine for me!"

That's nice.
Did you know my grandmother recently celebrated her 92nd birthday despite having smoked her whole life?  Does this therefore prove that smoking is harmless?
Let me make this very clear: Personal anecdotes are not and will not ever be acceptable as emperical arguments.  They are unverifiable, tainted by bias and are a sampling of only one, far far FAR too small to be valid data.
Not to mention it's a complete evasion of the moral question of the state.  Even if you're absolutely right in that the NHS took good care of you, that doesn't excuse the fact that it's an institution funded by coersion.  Being polite about stealing is still stealing.  There were plenty of businesses that were helped by the mafia too.  Did that excuse their crimes?  No, the ends do not justify the means.

9. "Well I've paid taxes for years and I don't see any gun aimed at me!"
So threats are not crimes if they aren't actually carried out?  I fear your own laws would beg to differ on that.
Name me something the state does that you morally oppose.  Now do you also understand that this is funded by your tax dollars.  If taxation is voluntary, I ask you, why are you voluntarily funding something that you morally oppose?
So which is it?  Taxation IS coercive or you are the worst kind of moral hypocrite.  Choose

8. "We just need small government.  Anarchy is too extreme!"
Anarchism is simply the logical conclusion of the non aggression principle.  Voluntarism is moral, aggression is immoral.  Since the state is an institution that claims the right to use aggression, it is completely incompatible with the NAP.
So what you're really saying is that consistency in principles is too extreme and that moderation in principles is prefferable.  I think you may be a little shaky on what principles actually are in that case.  If you can just pick and choose when you apply principles, then it's not a principle.

7. "Anarchy requires everyone to be saints!"
As opposed to a state that pre-supposes that evil people won't be interested in joining or lobbying it despite the fact that evil people have ALWAYS joined and lobbied it?
Without a state, power is decentralized with no state for the immoral to influence and gain power and priviledge from.  Using coersion will only get you ostracized and thus reaps short term gains at best.  Even scamming rarely works in the long run in a free market.  The only way to truly gain wealth in a free society is to serve the needs of your fellow man.  You don't have to care about him or even like him.  In this way, even evil people can work in harmony with others if for no other reason than their own benefit.
The existance of evil people is the very reason why statism CAN'T work.  It assumes that evil people are unaware of the state and thus all you end up doing is providing evil with a road map to power.  This has always been the case and there's no evidence to suggest that will ever change.

6. "The warlords will take over!"
Short answer: The warlords have already taken over.  What exactly did statism solve?
How exactly would a warlord take over without a state?  You could amass weapons...but everyone else has weapons too so you have no clear advantage in that respect.  You could run a defense agency and stock weapons...but that would require you to raise prices with no corresponding increase in services, inviting your competition to undercut you.  Maybe you could if you were rich, but what if local firms objected to this and refused to serve you until you cease and desist?  Put simply, if you want to be a warlord in a stateless society, you better damn well hope nobody ever catches on to what you're up to and if you really think amassing a sufficient army to overpower a nation is something you can do in complete secrecy, you watch WAY too many movies.
Since people are concerned about warlords taking over, this inevitably creates checks and balances that undermine any attempts at violent takeover.
Really, maybe you'd have ground here if statism managed to solve the problem of war but so far, it's really not doing a very good job in that respect.

5. "If you use government services, then you're a hypocrite!"
This argument would have merit if I were voluntarily funding government action despite morally condemning it but that's just simply not the case at all.  The money is forcibly seized from me!
Not to mention, if my taxes fund a government service yet I refuse to use said service out of principle, does this in any way act to discourage the government from providing said service now that they're essentially getting my money for nothing?  Hardly
If a slave accepts a meal from his master, does he thus condone slavery?  No, he's simply making the best of an immoral situation and one could hardly blame him for doing so.  If I'm going to be robbed, what's wrong with me trying to get back what I can from it?  Whatever the case, this still makes the state the immoral aggressor, not I.

4. "Taxes are fees for services"
Then why is it a percentage of your income?  It's not like Bill Gates is getting more roads, courts, police and protection than I am so why does he pay more than me?
Also, since when can a service be forced on someone without their permission and knowledge and the service demand whatever price they want with no prior agreement?  Can I mow your lawn while you're asleep and then demand 100$ for the work?  No court would take that seriously for even a second yet it's considered completely moral and sane when the state does it?
Demanding a percentage of one's income is FAR more consistent with the behavior of the mafia than any legitimate business.

3. "Well I like government and you have no right to force your views on me"
Good for you and this may blow your mind but I'm not forcing anything on you.  If you want to invest in some communist style setup, trust some third party to run your finances for you, heck if you want to swear lifetime fealty to someone, you are completely free to do so in a stateless society.  I have no moral objection to that whatsoever.  I might advice against it but I assure you, I won't try to forcibly stop you.  What I object to is the idea that I'm obligated to participate myself despite my personal wishes.  If you subscribe to an idea, that is your choice.  If you want to try to convince me to participate as well, you're welcome to.  If you think that entitles you to force my compliance should I disagree, now you've overstepped your boundaries.
This argument is mere projection and an attempt to deflect moral judgement.

2. "Monopolies would abound without the government!"
First of all, the government IS a monopoly so nice special pleading there.
Second of all, can you name me ONE monopoly in history that occured without government support?  The bar having a complete monopoly on lawyers?  Government supported.  The AMA having a complete monopoly on doctor licensing?  Government supported.  The FED have a complete monopoly on currency?  Government supported.  And lo and behold, their services suck and their prices are highway robbery!
Gee, the state REALLY seems to care about protecting you from monopolies doesn't it?
But let's say it completely is possible for monopolies to form in a free market.  Okay, so what's the worst they could do?  Charge outlandish prices for their products and that would be bad?  Well riddle me this: What if they not only charged outlandish prices but could also FORCE you to pay for them?  What if they could force you to pay even if you didn't use their services at all?
Are you starting to see how "blow up your house to prevent an infestation" level illogical this argument really is?

1. "But there would be just chaos with no government!"
Ah the all purpose statist argument.  Where do I even start?
First of all, "But if we didn't have arranged marriages!  People would be going around marrying whoever they want!  It would be chaos!"
And I think your reply would be "Yeah, that's exactly what we want."
The internet is chaotic fundamentally, and that's exactly how we want it.
Nature is a tinker, not a designer, and we owe everything for that fact.
So first lesson: Chaos is as neccessary as order, it is not inherrently bad as this argument implies.

But let's think even deeper about this.  Laws are absurdely complex, nobody can read, understand or comply with them.  Politicians can disregard their vows and even outright commit crimes against their own people as well as others with no ill consequence.  They don't even try to hide it!  Regulations are up for grabs to the highest bidder with no principled basis whatsoever, many of which contradict each other.  Banksters can scam the public and then get bailouts for it.  It goes on and on and on.

People, tell me seriously, is this your idea of order?  Really?

Shall I spell it out for you?  Every single thing you're afraid of happening without a government has already happened.  Not just some of them, all of them.

Being victimized by rich people?  Already here
Warlords?  Already here
People killing and getting away with it?  Already here
Economy in turmoil?  Already here

So really, none of you are in a position to be demanding answers as to how anarchism is going to solve society's problems considering that statism has utterly failed in every possible way to solve them and in fact has caused the vast majority of them.

And the really sad thing, you folks already know this!  This isn't some great revelation!  Come on folks, you still have WAR for crying out loud!  6000 years and governments are still solving conflicts the same way we did back when we lived in caves?  That's embarrassing and you should be embarrassed too.

Trusting the most violent and exploitive group in human history to protect you from violence and exploitation is nothing short of complete insanity.  If you continue to believe in statism despite this, if you continue to delude yourself into thinking the state is suddenly going to grow a conscience, get it's act together and actually start making good on it's historically hollow promises...then look foreward to a life of disappointments and I hate to say it but you absolutely deserve what you get.  I just wish you weren't dragging the rest of us down with your fantasies too.

And that's another 10 favorite statist arguments.  Now wasn't that fun?
© 2012 - 2024 TerraDraca
Comments18
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Thenit's avatar
hi, very nice journal.. i thoroughly enjoyed it.. if youre on FB, check out this page..
[link]