Did you realize telling someone who says it's government's one job to protect the rights of the people, that government's entire history has proven it utterly unwilling and incapable of doing so, is "too negative"?
Me neither.
But to statists, who are emotionally attached to a failed system, it is.
Government, mainly through the govshool version of history, has told them that without government, there will be nothing but chaos and death. So it must be true. Right? Government wouldn't lie to them to protect its own power, would it?
Pointing out that this doesn't have to be the case is "too negative". Showing people that they don't have to be slaves is "too negative". Telling people they have a choice and can choose liberty is "too negative". Trying to break through their Stockholm Syndrome is "too negative". They love Big Brother.
Lying to someone to protect their feelings, especially if they are in danger, isn't being nice. It seems a bit predatory.
Statists seem to think that if you say the government way of doing something is unethical, you're against any other way of doing that thing. No, I'm in favor of looking for a way to do everything that should be done without violating the life, liberty, or property of others. If an ethical solution makes everyone happy (other than archators), then that's what I want. Even if I'm not personally interested in participating.
It doesn't seem like it would be hard to understand that- unless someone has a vested interest in not understanding. Such as the vested interest someone who has their lips superglued to Trump's hiney (or any other politician's body part) might have.
Thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment