Statist Ideology is Orwellian Doublethink

Okay, often times you hear statists say that without a government, men with more guns than you would rob you at gunpoint. People would be taken advantage of and stolen from at the threat of violence. What's the statist solution to this problem?

Rob people under the threat of violence (taxes) to prevent people from being robbed under the threat of violence!

Does that make your brain hurt?

How does the government prevent the person with the most guns from being in charge? Like this:

Put people with most guns in charge (IE: government) to prevent people with the most guns from being in charge.

What. WHAT. Is that supposed to make sense?

Let's look at the things that the government is supposed to prevent but does itself on a regular basis:

Stealing

The government supposedly protects people from being stolen from by stealing half of their income at gunpoint! LOL (They call it "taxes")

Kidnapping

The government protects you from kidnappers by handcuffing non-violent people (drug users, prostitutes, speeders, etc) and throwing them in cages! Yay... (The government calls this "Incarceration")

Rape

The government prevents rape by arresting non-violent people and allowing them to be raped in cages over and over and over again.

Murder

The government prevents murder by sending thousands of young people into foreign countries to die and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and babies. (The government calls this "collateral damage" and "war")

_______

The government solution to preventing violence against people is to use violence against people. It makes no sense, it's illogical.

Complex social problems can't be solved through the use of violence, good can never come of aggressive violence against non-violent people. It's common sense, you were taught this stuff in kindergarten, remember?

 

So can anyone make sense of statist logic?

 

Oh c'mon, no one is going to reply?

 

The OP makes a lot of good points. Unfortunately, whenever I bring them up on other forums, I'm told the alternatives I've proposed (such as contractual agreements instead of automatic governmental control over people) sound like anarchy, while I call it freedom.

I believe the Constitution is an excellent document, and if it had been followed our country wouldn't be in such political and economic turmoil now. However, I can see room for improvement, and I question why anyone should be bound to an agreement he or she never signed. I feel the same way about the bailouts and irresponsible deficit spending. Why should American taxpayers be stuck with enormous debt that we the people didn't agree to, especially when phone calls against the bailouts were as high in some precincts as 300 to 1 against.? The answer is that we shouldn't. So why should we be subjects of a government that WE personally never agreed to be subject to?

I happen to like the idea of a limited government, but history shows that governments go through several stages, always leading to high taxes, corruption, and tyranny. That is what we are seeing in the US now. But mention any alternatives, and people would rather live with the devil big government they know, than live in freedom.

 

People are afraid of freedom. Government is just another way of saying might makes right.

 

Your mind exists first, and foremost, to protect you. It does not care if you are happy. It does not care if you achieve success, or have the things you want. It has one job: keep you alive. Because of this, the mind prefers comfort, the status quo, nothing really changing, because in that position, it can keep you alive, it knows the field and the dangers. This is a difficult thing to overcome for anyone to get what they really want out of life, and for most people it means a visceral fear of real change and significant challenge to what they know to be the status quo. Hell, most people don't like to be challenged with actual logic and will get angry if asked to really think about what they believe.

 

Whenever I argue against the principles of government, I just get emotional reactions. It's never logic. That's how you can tell that statism is intellectually bankrupt. They can't respond to criticism with logic, only with emotion or by

​

ignoring it all together.

 

I myself am an anti authoritarian bouncing between being against unnecessary authority and being against all positions of authority. I see government as an extension of those who would exploit people. While i believe many who work in the government feel they are benefiting people i see it as a hierarchy which concentrates power in the hands of a few corrupt regulators, governors and their backers.
However i disagree with your believes of violence I don't see it being so black and white. Violence is an extremely complex matter. It's hard to understand or develop on because it is such a chaotic subject with such extreme repercussions. I don't think kindergarteners could understand such a complex issue however i think it's best they don't experiment with it.

 

Yes, there are gray areas on the topic of violence but the issues I spoke about are black and white.

Forcing someone at gunpoint to give you money is stealing. What is grey about that? It is most definitely the same principle learned in kindergarten. Don't take other people's toys, don't hit people. It's clear cut, aggression is aggression.

Can you give me an example where the initiation of force on a person that is not hurting anyone is morally okay? If not, it's a black and white issue.

 

I still haven't seen one good refutation by a statist.

It seems that statists avoid criticism like the plague and choose to ignore logic rather than use it.

 

You have to remember that the governments who rob the crap out of us today are extremely corrupt. Politicians of this day and age didn't take the job so they could serve their country and people but rather to line their pockets. So you cannot entirely dismiss the role of authority and government just because we live in a world of oppression by jerk offs.

See Human instinct mandates that we form into two distinct classes; leaders and followers. Aboriginal tribes of North America, ancient Greece, Rome, Industrial era USA. All of these were great empires, nations, and tribes during times of great leadership systems which suited their societies. Rome and Greece were the original democracies and it worked superb for them until they crumbled to conquest and internal power struggles. Look at how Aboriginal tribes had chieftains. That system is the very system developed naturally for Humanity by natural selection and it served the Aboriginals well for thousands of years. It may have continued to this day if it weren't for colonial conquest. Mongolia is another example of this.

As our population levels increase and our domain in the universe expands we will continue to make further complex governments to manage the load put on them. This is why we require federal bureaus for everything now. What could once be handled by ten people now requires thousands. Could the true democracies of the Greek city states handle the work load put on them by multi-million soul nations spanning thousands of kilometers? Unfortunately no, they can't. This is why we see increasing levels of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism itself isn't evil either if society will question their leaders as much as they obey them. It's a matter of social engineering really.

The problem isn't the state because the state is simply just the manifestation of Humanities need to have leadership. Rather the problem is in the leaders themselves. And of course the masses carelessness towards corruption these days.

The criticisms of anarchism (the ideology) are true though. When people lack leadership and control we become savages and will form into packs of criminals preying on each other. And even then we will still unite under a leader who takes on the most basic form of "the state". There's more to it than that though and requires a whole discussion itself.

In summary; Humans require leadership and as our population increases our leader(s) evolve into some form of structured government. The territories we patrol as tribal peoples (which is the way we should be living really) turn into established empires. So on and so forth.

 

It's not a simple as pointing a gun at someone. There are hundreds of questions that can be just raised about that certain situation. Why am i stealing, from whom am i stealing from, who determined it was theirs to begin with? What you are simply talking about is empathy for those who you see as mistreated by the violent offender but that is only your view point. That's normal but you should quickly be critically thinking about the situation not just responding with empathy. Children can't grasp all of these complicated concepts so a teacher will appeal to their empathy, tell them there is a benefit to cooperation, and tell them if they do use force then they will be punished. Aggression is aggression but that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong.
And can you make the correct assertion that someone is not hurting anyone? I know i can't, not even with close friends. I don't know these things but because violence can escalate quickly i try to break it up while i can and honestly I've done it very little as I don't live a violent place. I've then either tried to figure out what was going on or just stop it if i disagreed with it at the time. But honestly these issues take more thought then just a moment and who knows if we put some time into the issue we might just flip-flop to the other side.
Also there aren't many statists here who will admit it just a few who are actively online. The majority of the statists here are fascists who are in denial and they are much more vocal here.

 

There is validity to the first part quoted above. Some people commit theft in a grocery store because they cannot afford the food they are stealing. So there is a larger problem to be solved. However the crime cannot go unpunished, otherwise people will begin to use excuses to get away with their crimes. Ever seen a welfare junkie who is perfectly capable of working but refuses to because, through exploiting flaws in the welfare system, he can stay at home and pick his nose all day? It's disturbingly common...

The second part though... "Statists" are simply just people who are arguing the valid points for government. It isn't an ideology or a moral code or anything so it is entirely possible for anyone from all positions of any political spectrum to be a "statist". And just because people are authoritarians doesn't make them fascists. I am a strong authoritarian but yet if I were, hypothetically, the head of state I would encourage my citizens to question every word to come out of my mouth. How can I be a fascist if I am a leader who insists on telling the people I lead to be skeptical of me every day of their lives? Some authoritarians are good people, but just like any ideology there are tons of jerks who ruin it for the rest of us.

 

Yes I can. The core principle of government is violence. The government is merely a vehicle for people that want to use and exploit other people. That is the nature of government, it has been and always will be.

Okay, you just made a leap without connecting the dots. What does leadership have to do with violent rule by force? Their are plenty of leaders that people follow voluntarily. Heads of organizations and movements, even businesses. They are all leaders but they don't use violence to get what they want. Leaders DO NOT need to use violence to be leaders.

Actually, Rome crumbled because their currency became worthless. As the government had to pay more and more mecenaries, they began to mix their gold pieces with other metals that weren't worth anything. Eventually the fiat currency the Roman government issued was only 2% gold. This is when the mercenaries realized the Roman government would not pay them what they owed and decided to attack Rome. The same thing is happening in the USA. The dollar is not backed by anything and the world will soon see how worthless it is.

What aboriginal tribes? You have to be more specific, their are many aboriginals across the world.

This is drivel, why are you implying that the world requires a monopoly on violence?

Federal Bureaus are the epitome of inefficiency and make things worse for the industry. The FDA requires drug companies to wait 7 or 8 years before the drug becomes approved and you must have millions of dollars to even have the drug have a chance. This delaying of the release of cures and treatments for deadly diseases has resulted in much death in first and third world countries.

What are you talking about? Soul nations? What?

Yes it is, I shouldn't have to question anyone. You don't have a right to my body or to money. Why is it so hard to understand that people should not initiate force against other people? [/quote]

NO. There are plenty of organizations that are not violent, but also contain leadership. You're basically saying that the mafia is the manifestation of humanities need for leadership. That's bull(*)(*)(*)(*), the mafia and the government are nothing more than criminals that extort through violence. The only difference is, one you see as wrong, the other you see as necessary. Hint: They both operate the same way.

Again with the leadership... leadership does not require violence. Who said that people wouldn't be controlled? Are you implying that their would be no law in a market anarchist society? That last bit you said really makes me laugh. Did you read the OP? It's an oxymoron.. you want to steal money from people so others don't steal money from people. LOL

No, leadership does not equal violence. Tell me, are you aware of ancient Iceland? They thrived as a civilization for a thousand years with no form of government. Here is a list of articles on the many civilizations that have been stateless and not chaotic:

http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

Answer this for me, you said you believed that if people were not controlled by an authority, they would become mindless savages that would murder and kill? Is this a correct statement?

 

It's not my "viewpoint" or "opinion." I'm saying that using violence against an innocent person is wrong. That is not empathetic, it's obvious.

It is a simple concept. Don't use force against innocent people. How much easier can I make it?

Okay, I don't know what you're talking about in this section. How do you know someone isn't using violence? I don't really understand what you are trying to express. Anyway, this is about running a system on the core philosophy that the initiation of force against innocent people is the best way to solve complex social problems.

Since you said aggression isn't always wrong, I'll posit this.

I'd like you to give me one situation where the use of force against a person that is not violating anyone else's rights and not using violence, is justified and okay.

 

Calling government statism is not justified. Government is the institution of law enforcement over a certain area. Statism is a political ideology derived from a view of man as an object of sacrafice for the collective good.

There is no justification for saying that all taxes are robbery or theft. When men create and maintain a government to secure their rights from the threat of aggression by criminals or invaders, the consent to pay the military, police and courts is implied. There is no theft when the agents of your self defense and administration of justice are contracted to serve and protect you and you pay them. I won't work for free and neither should they.

 

I vastly prefer the government's guns to the mafia's guns.

 

That's my preference as well but when those same government guns are turned on us in some attempt to redistribute wealth rather than on those who threaten us in some objectively ascertainable way, the government becomes your enemy instead of your protector.

 

As long as that government is still democratically elected, it's definitely better than anarchy.

 

My argument against statism is not an endorsement of anarchy. I'm opposed to both for the same reason. For all practicle purposes, a democratically decided law restricting access to abortion is reprehensible due the violation of a woman's reproductive rights. Would you then argue that this is preferable to blowing up the abortion clinic?

 

Absolutely.

 

Taxation is not robbery.

 

What's to refute? Your arguments are based on a faulty assumption--you mistakenly claim that taxation is equivalent to robbery. It is not. When one person robs another person, they take something in exchange for nothing. When the government levies taxes at the behest of the public (as is the case in countries with democratically elected leadership), they do this in order to pay for programs provided to the public. You may consider this exchange unfair, but that does not change the fact that it is notably different from robbery.

 

How so? I am not wealthy; why should I oppose spreading the wealth?