Some anarcho whatever lols
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lol Person
I have neither the time or the energy to make anything resembling a coherent series about "the project," so this will be haphazard, random mayhem. The point of these will be to describe the inherent contradictions in ALL belief in "government," and show how to lead a statist to see those contradictions in his own head. (Again, what a statist DOES about it is his problem. He can have a tantrum, go into denial, make dire predictions, whatever.)
STATIST CONTRADICTION #1 (and how to expose it):
Everyone who wants a "government" wants an OUTSIDE "authority," which stands apart from all the individual judgments of all the peasants, to dictate and enforce "rules" which make people behave properly. So you'll hear statists say "there have to be rules," or "someone has to be in charge," or "society requires the rule of law," and so on. All such assertions (and many more) imply that there needs to be a "final decider" and ultimate all-powerful thing whose decrees OUTRANK and OVERRULE the individual judgment of all the normal people, and whose judgment the peasantry must defer to, in order to avoid (you guessed it) anarchy!
Here's the slight, glaring, gigantic, patently obvious problem with such a notion. The statist NEVER thinks that ANY old entity, issuing and enforcing ANY old rules, will suffice. If you AGREE with the statist that "someone has to be in charge" and that "there have to be rules," but then suggest having some power-happy homicidal tyrant be "in charge," and having "the rules" including slaughtering half the population, EVERY statist will object. This raises the obvious question: if there has to be an outside "authority" controlling, ruling and governing everyone else, who the hell is the statist to decide WHAT that "authority" should dictate? If "the rules" say "give the king half of what you produce, and your first-born," to OBJECT to those rules is to put your OWN judgment above that of the rule-making "authority." And if an individual can do that, then by definition, it isn't "authority" anymore.
(For a rather silly video making the point, do a YouTube search for my name and "The Rules.")
What every single statist in the world really wants "government" for is to take HIS OWN PERSONAL JUDGMENT, and forcibly impose it on everyone else via a supposed "authority," so that: a) the statist doesn't have to do it himself; b) everyone is forced to abide by HIS values; c) he takes on no personal risk for trying to bend others to his will, and; d) he accepts no personal blame for trying to violently control others. But the moment it is someone ELSE'S preferences and values being forced on HIM, he will complain. Because all statists are hypocrites (just as I was, when I was one).
One very easy way to put this glaring contradiction in front of a statist is to ask him, is there ANY situation, real or hypothetical, in which you would feel justified in DISOBEYING and/or RESISTING the "laws" of "government"? Every statist, if he thinks about it at all, answers "yes." This demonstrates that, when it comes right down to it, he believes that, if he wants it to be so, his OWN personal judgment can OUTRANK the edicts of that outside "authority," and it can be perfectly moral (at least in some cases) for him to BREAK "the rules" and DISOBEY "authority." The problem is that "authority" MEANS the right to rule, which logically implies the obligation to obey. If there is ANY scenario in which the statist could decide that those in power do NOT have the right to enforce something on him, and that he does NOT have an obligation to blindly obey, that means that he DOESN'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE the outside thing to be "authority." Because suddenly those cliche sayings listed above turn into ""there have to be rules... although sometimes people should break them," "someone has to be in charge... although sometimes people should disobey him," and "society requires the rule of law... and sometimes requires the law to be violated." Then it all just kind of turns into meaningless, self-contradictory mush.
One would literally have to be insane to really and truly believe that every person (including himself) should DISREGARD his own judgment and moral code, in favor of blind obedience to some "authority." And NO statist all the way believes that. What every statist in the world actually believes is, "authority has the right to rule... except when it doesn't...; and the people have an obligation to obey... except when they don't." And that makes all of the supposed "authority" of "the powers that be" evaporate. If YOU can "outrank" it whenever you want to, it ain't your lord and master anymore.
(P.S. "The Project" will bring people to such realizations WAY more gently and passively than what I just wrote, without ANY judgment or contrary opinions being thrown at the user at all. I just explain it in the blunt assertion and argument method here because it's easier.)
P.P.S. To learn more about the project, or to support it's making, visit:
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Fundi...king-the-Cage/
.
