Statism is based on lies. Without lies it evaporates like a single drop of water skittering across the hot surface of a wood stove in January.
Not just the classic Orwellian "War is peace" lies, but lies most people don't even notice.
Lies like "taxation is the price we pay for a civilized society", and "there's no difference between men and women (and/or "men" and "women" can be defined however you want, or denied altogether)".
Lies like the myth that a country is like a private club, where the members have the right to control who gets in.
Believing that "democracy" or a Constitution make mob rule OK is believing in a lie.
Liberty and rights are not up for a v*te, even if government allows "the people" to v*te on them. It's a lie.
Lies, even those which don't seem to have anything to do with statism specifically, can be harmful and help prop up statism. They give justifications for "laws" which violate liberty. They train people to believe there is no truth, but whatever you feel is right is OK-- and most people feel it's OK to violate you in one way or another.
Seeing the lies and refusing to go along with them is not a path to popularity. It's not "pragmatic" or nice. So be it.
I like and follow your blog. I think, as a country, we do not lose the right of free association just because we are a group. If we, as a country, do not want to be around say violent m13 gang members, or radical muslims, then yes we do have the right to determine who comes into our country.
ReplyDeleteHow do you do that without violating the property rights and right of association of those who don't agree with this "we"? This is the justification used for more anti-gun "laws", too. "We, as a country, need to ban guns because too many innocents are being killed". It's the same kind of thinking.
DeleteI think groups are only legitimate as long as they don't enforce conformity on people who aren't in the group while including people in the group who didn't explicitly agree to the conditions of the group. A country can't be a legitimate group because the demand is "go along with the collective (which almost no one decided to join) or leave and go somewhere claimed by another collective". How can you opt out without being told to leave? Is it your responsibility to leave if a different gang takes over and makes up rules you don't agree to? Or, are nasty gangs all fundamentally the same? Even if they took over long before you were born?
This is one of those cases where "we" is a very dangerous and misleading word. Collectivism at its worst.
You have a right to keep anyone off your property for any reason (or no reason at all), but no right to keep anyone off your neighbor's property. You also have the absolute right to kill MS-13 gang members and radical Muslims (and anyone else) who violates you or anyone else. (And I think you should!)
This is a government-created problem which only empowers government as long as the "solution" is believed to be more collectivism.