I asked the question, "What justifies government?", and got a lot of input from Statists. I did my best to ask the question in a non-biased way, and even to ask unbiased (as possible) follow-up questions of those who answered flippantly. It’s hard because I’m obviously biased for liberty, and after I had the answers I sought, I let my bias shine.
A pattern emerged in those answers.
Fear is the most common excuse I see used to justify government. It's what every justification I've encountered distills down to, even when they try to frame it otherwise. They are scared and feel safer under government.
Don't want the government taking its "laws" off of machine guns, even though you acknowledge all such rules are illegal under the Second Amendment, because you're afraid of criminals having machine guns? That's advocating statism because of fear. (The most dangerous criminals already have machine guns if they want them, and always will.)
Justify "borders" because you're scared of what migrants do or might do? That's advocating statism because of fear.
Over and over again, I watch the same thing.
Maybe you're afraid that poor people would die without government help. There it is: fear.
Maybe you're afraid children would remain ignorant without govschooling.
Maybe you're scared that without government, children would be exploited, violated, and killed.
Maybe you're afraid the natural environment would be wiped out without government making up rules protecting it.
Maybe you're afraid that corporations- a government creation- would take over the world without government stopping them.
Maybe you're afraid criminals would run rampant without "laws", police, and a "justice system".
Maybe you're afraid people would drive dangerously without government traffic enforcement.
Maybe you're afraid there would be no roads to drive on at all; all we'd have are cow paths and potholes.
Maybe you're scared your culture will be eradicated without government propping it up in some way.
Maybe you're afraid radio signals would overlap, and the airwaves would be nothing but unintelligible gibberish without government allocating frequencies.
Maybe you're scared of drugs, and think that without prohibition, people would die of overdoses and contaminated drugs.
Maybe you're scared of being invaded and having foreign rulers replace the rulers you've grown accustomed to.
Maybe you're scared of having to figure out what time to set your clock to without government guidance.
I could go on like this forever. This doesn't begin to cover the answers I got, but there's a common root.
It's all fear, and it's all misplaced and misguided, since the worst-case scenario is almost guaranteed to happen, not prevented but actually facilitated by the entity statists look to for protection.
And, if you address the fear, questioning the justification for government, you'll experience their anger.
Everyone feels fear. Not everyone gives in to it and sacrifices the world to their fears. Statists do.
Giving in to fear is cowardice. Even if it just means excusing government's existence.
Do not be afraid. It’s one of the most common messages in religions (even Statism).
You don’t need government. Fear makes you believe you do. Fear not. And reject that which is justified by fears.
One such example from one of statism's brightest:
"The libertarian solutions (all of them) come down to a simple one-liner, 'Just let the poor people die.'"
As opposed to the statist solutions (all of them), which come down to, "People are government's property; kill them if they resist".
Yeah, that's so much more caring. Right? LOL
When I was writing yesterday's blog post, I was thinking of how many times I have already explained that same thing. I'm not sure exactly, but it is probably several. But, people "out there" aren't getting it.
That's not the only example, either. Nearly every post I write, dealing with some simple reality that shouldn't be hard to understand, is a re-statement of things I (or others) have said before, addressing bad thinking that has taken root and is still there despite all attempts to uproot it.
I know that almost no one "out there" in the world, percentage-wise, has been exposed to my blog, but I also know that if I can see and know something like that, many others do as well. I don't claim to be the only individual who can see these things. The opportunities are all around. Freely available.
I also know that when people say something dumb and demonstrably wrong, they often get pushback. I see it happen. They resist learning, though.
So, we repeat ourselves. Endlessly. And each time, it's as though no one has ever addressed the broken thinking before. Are these concepts not being explained well? Or have those who refuse to learn built defenses to protect their strange (often, political) beliefs, which results in the same result.
So, if you start reading this blog, or something else, and you get a feeling of deja vu, it's probably that you really have read something very similar before. We have to keep repeating ourselves for the slow kids in the back.
Why is that?
In the first case, it's a collectivist blanket statement of people who have nothing relevant in common. They are being grouped by superficial criteria. You can't look at anyone in this category and know anything important about who they are as an individual. Part of that is because, although there are cultural differences that can correlate with "races", people aren't doomed to a particular culture just because others who look like them are part of that culture.
In the second case, people are choosing to act a certain way; to self-categorize themselves by how they behave. This is 100% a choice, and has nothing to do with traits that are inborn and unchangeable. You can know important things about them by noticing which group they chose to belong to; what they are willing to do to others in exchange for a paycheck. This is a culture that self-selects for membership, and if you don't fall in line with the behavior of this culture, you won't truly belong and will be kicked out and punished.
Yet, the people in the second category will tell you that seeing all of those who choose to belong to a group based on behavior is "like racism". That if you condemn them for choosing to be on this path, you're like a racist
That is useful to those who choose to do bad things.
I think you can see the reasons this false narrative is pushed. Why an inability to see the difference in the statements is encouraged by the supporters of the bad guys.
Whether it's intentionally spreading a disease that makes people allergic to red meat, trying to criminalize self-defense, collecting all our data to use against us, or filling the streets with their weaponized drones, it's for "the common good".
And, yet, they'll lie and claim that those of us who don't want any of this garbage are imposing our wishes on others. On them. Oh, the poor babies!
No, this goes only one way.
Telling the control fetishists to leave us alone isn't us imposing our will on them. It's drawing a boundary and telling them we expect it to be respected. They can do whatever they want to each other, just leave us out of it.
I saw another story recently where someone focused on the wrong thing. Again. As always.
“A man in New York City walks into a bakery with a large bag and cleans out the entire display case. The same witness ran into him half an hour earlier at Home Depot where he was stealing there too. Two stores. One morning. One bag. Zero consequences. This is what happens when you decriminalize theft in a Democrat run city.”
No.
This is what happens when you criminalize defense and the proper tools with which to carry it out.
It’s not a case of too little “law”, but of too much, and aimed at the wrong people.
Government coddles criminals because government is made up of criminals. It’s professional courtesy.
It's your right to defend your property, or any property with which you've been entrusted. Or anyone else's property you witness being violated. Government "laws" violate this right in favor of criminals.
It's not kindness or compassion. It's slavery. You are being enslaved by a coalition of freelance criminals, governing criminals, and their hired goons.
Not those who died as pawns of a government.
Not those who gave their lives to further the interests of political criminals in a government military.
Even knowing that many of those imagined, because of statist brainwashing, that they were doing the right thing.
But rather those who stood up for liberty and human rights, doing what they had the right to do, acting only in defense, and were killed or destroyed by the criminals of the State as a result.
The State will label them "criminals", grouping them with freelance archators, and Statanists will nod along with this lie. But these are the true heroes of the human story.
For Liberty!
Every individual has equal and identical rights. That's special enough.
No one has "special" extra rights. And that's great. The world doesn't work if some have special rights above and beyond those everyone else has.
This is what stinks with the Leftist w0ke mindset. It's also what's wrong with Rightist copsuckers.
They both want to pretend some people have extra rights; that they are special. The fact that no one has the right to archate isn't good enough for them, because it doesn't put the objects of their worship on a pedestal.
That's how you know they're wrong.
Because the law says so.
So they'll act on that belief even if they see that the other person isn't going to stop.
They'll believe that they don't need to take responsibility for themselves because that's what cops are for. Plus, government really doesn't like it if you prove you don't need their "help".
These are the type of people who are likely to claim they have a right to do something but are reluctant to act on it.
They are also those who imagine they have a "right" to your labor and property.
Smarter people know "laws" don't alter reality.
Maybe. Probably.
The smart way to approach it is to make it an adventure. You don't want "boring", do you?
Well, the political criminals and other archators running things are working to make sure you live in "interesting times". They're working as hard as they can to impose a police state of surveillance and control, while at the same time letting their freelance soulmates run amok and violate you from the other side. It's a team effort, and you're designated to be the pawn.
You might as well find ways to enjoy it while it lasts.
It's not as though you have the option to avoid it.
I'd prefer brain surgeons to be specialists, but for most people, I think it's better to be a generalist. I can even see how it could be bad for a brain surgeon to be too specialized- to the point he misses something that would be obvious to someone else. If your only tool is a hammer, you'll see every problem as a nail.
I usually prefer to keep my options open by not doing anything that traps me into one course. This blog was birthed by me breaking my own rule. I have paid a price for that, but not an insurmountable price. It is an educational realization.
However, keeping your options open can also backfire. My aversion to focusing too deeply on any one thing prevented me from getting a college degree. I could never declare a major because it felt like a trap. When I get interested in something, I focus on it until I know it well enough to satisfy me, then I'm ready to move on to something else. (I recommend you not do what I have done.)
Probably the best course is to focus deeply on one area that others find useful, then dabble a little in everything else that interests you. That seems like it would work even for brain surgeons. It might make you a well-rounded individual who also has the expertise in one area to support you through life.
Now, this is objectively not true. Someone else pointed out. "I've seen them driving around downtown, sans human driver."
The Luddite's response. "They are not reliable. Several have ran over pedestrians and they have been the cause of accidents"
I pointed out, "Humans are even less reliable, unfortunately."
So, he responded, "If that is true then why is it required for a person to be at the wheel and paying attention while the vehicle is driving itself?"
My response, which should have ended the debate: "Because laws are archaic and stupid."
That "laws" require something dumb isn't an argument. It proves nothing. It doesn't make the case that statists believe it makes. Most legislation is years behind the curve. And even if it weren't, it would still be stupid (and evil).
Look, I would FEEL unsafe in a self-driving car. I really want to be in control, even though I don't like piloting vehicles very much. But, intellectually, I know they are already safer than human drivers. It doesn't matter whether I want that to be true or not. Mine is an irrational reaction based only on my feelings, not on reality.
Like my disdain for air travel (even without the TSA and security theater making it worse). Feelings aren't reality.
The weak link in traffic safety is the human behind the wheel- and it always has been. Drunk or sober.
The Luddite brought up several more objections, but every single problem he mentioned is also true for human drivers. Probably to a greater degree! Every single one. And, you know he knows it- he just doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars.
Here's the thing he's ignoring: Self-driving cars will continue to improve in their ability to safely handle real-world conditions and surprises. Humans, not so much.
I don't want legislation (or rules) to either mandate or forbid self-driving cars. I want the State kept out of our vehicles entirely. Government interference is the real danger.
I used to be this way. I once thought the Soviet Union was eternal. It had existed all my life, and I had no reason to think it wouldn't continue to exist long after I was gone.
Then, just like that, it was gone. I learned from that experience. Others don't.
My parents are prime examples.
They simply can't imagine things changing.
To them, a college degree will always be essential for any non-janitorial job. Any exception shown to them is "well, that's just one instance, and it's probably not even true". Even though there are plenty of examples in the family. Both people with well-paying jobs without a college degree, and people with college degrees having no job at all (or a low-paying job that's "beneath them").
They believe the US dollar will always be worth earning and saving. Even though it has already lost nearly all its trade value. When I've said that at some point, it will no longer be worth it to work for any job that pays in dollars, they said I was wrong, and that you'll always have to take dollars, because what else would you do?
At least I was finally able to talk them into diversifying into a couple of other options. Maybe they did see the writing on the wall.
They can't imagine the US government becoming so tyrannical that the people have to start openly defending themselves from it and its employees. They still believe cops are the good guys, even though they know of more examples of the "few bad apples" than the "good" cops. Their desire to believe otherwise is so strong!
They believe America will always be a superpower and the dominant military force on the planet. Tangentially, they believe the Israeli government (they confuse it for the country) is "America's" best ally (again, confusing a government for the country and population), ignoring history for what they wish to be true.
Eventually, the USA will be gone, just like the USSR. I hope America survives the end of the USA, but it may not.
Take nothing for granted. Plan ahead for the unthinkable. Bad guys are planning and plotting; do the same in self-defense.
At their age (or even at mine), there's no guarantee they'll live to see these changes. But the changes are coming. If they aren't here already.
All statists suffer this mindset. They can't imagine life without their god, so they think their god will always reign supreme. That's not guaranteed, though. In fact, the opposite is guaranteed; no one knows the timeframe, though.
Then, they'll try to insult me by calling me an "anarchist".
They're shooting blanks.
If their idea of "libertarian" means keeping a minimal state around ("minarchy"; the wildest Utopian notion ever) so it can violate life, liberty, and property they don't personally like, count me out.
They don't really trust liberty, but fear some aspects of it, which they want government to control (violate) for them. They want to distinguish themselves from anyone who isn't saddled with their hangups. So they'll insist libertarians can't be anarchists and anarchists aren't libertarian. Many of them will say that if you're not on board with the Libertarian Party, you're not a libertarian.
Just like the awful person I know who once told people who asked about me, "I don't believe like him", I'm glad they've distanced themselves from me. They're doing me a favor. Thank you!
