You are here

Abandoning Their Principles, Cheering for Aggression

Premise: Initiating violence against entire categories of people is justified if the end result is more overall freedom.

That is the “ends justify the means” bullshit excuse that “closed border” advocates pretending to be anarchists constantly use. “Letting in more statists would cause less freedom, and therefore initiating violence against millions of people who I don’t know, and who haven’t actually done anything yet, is justified!”

Aside from being immoral and statist, such a “principle” could also be used to literally justify mass murder. “Well those people don’t care about freedom, so if we kill them all, the world will be more free overall! If we just exterminate everyone who doesn’t believe what I believe, then we can have utopia!” (And I’ve heard “alt-right” fascists saying pretty much that.)

This is why I wouldn’t trust a “closed border” “anarchist” as far as I could throw them: they’ve already demonstrated that they will abandon principles, and cheer for violent aggression, if they think it would serve their own interests to do so.

Collectivist Authoritarians Can’t Be Anarchists

Some supposed “anarchists” now argue that, as a result of being robbed by the political parasites, American taxpayers magically have some rightful collective ownership of the entire area now called “the United States,” and therefore have the right to forcibly prevent anyone else from setting foot anywhere inside it (via “closed borders”). A few things about this argument:

1) It is “outcome-based” bullshit. It is the result of people wanting an excuse for state violence, and concocting and twisting an elaborate, perverted rationalization, like a lawyer making an argument for something he knows is bullshit. No one, starting from the fundamental principles of libertarianism, would even think of such a thing, much less pretend it is consistent or moral.

2) No, getting victimized by one person doesn’t magically give you the right to victimize someone else.

3) No, getting robbed by politicians while you’re living in Florida doesn’t magically give you a say over who can set foot anywhere in the vast wilderness of Alaska. Politicians robbing you is not why Alaska (or anywhere else) exists. Someone in DC robbing someone in Florida doesn’t magically give the robber or the robbed ownership of any of Alaska. No one has rightful ownership of unused and uninhabited land.

4) Those who argue this “collective ownership” BS never explain why some of the people in the collective have no right to decide who sets foot on their own property. How do some “taxpayers” get the right to tell other “taxpayers” that they are not allowed to invite “illegal” people onto their own property?

5) No, you don’t get to use violence against an entire category of people based on your guess about what some of them might do in the future.

6) Why would nationality or citizenship have any relevance? You might as well claim that it’s morally okay to forcibly evict anyone who doesn’t pay “taxes” from the entire area known as “the United States.” (But you probably won’t, because then your argument would sound as ridiculous as it is.)

7) If you think that: a) one’s place of birth, or; b) arbitrary lines made up by politicians, or; c) whether or not someone has the written permission of politicians to be somewhere, have any effect on when force is morally justified, then you are absolutely a statist.

8) Once again, to advocate state violence by state agents to enforce state laws about state borders makes you a ……… wait for it ………. STATIST! Duh.

What baffles me is why anyone who argues such collectivist authoritarian bullshit even wants to pretend to be an anarchist. It’s like a “pacifist” explaining why he beat the crap out of someone, but is still a pacifist. Or a “vegan” explaining why he just ate a big steak, but is still a vegan. If you’re gonna advocate state violence, aggression, and centralized, collectivist authoritarian control, then just accept and admit that you’re a statist.

We Are You

A day or two ago I had the displeasure of hearing an ad on the radio, which was the mindless mercenaries of the state trying to sound human, in the hopes of getting more people to join up to be mindless mercenaries. The ad starts with some guy describing all the ways in which he is a normal dude, just like you. Eventually he gets around to saying that he is a Pennsylvania state trooper. Then he says, on behalf of all his fellow badge-wearing automatons, “we are you.”

No, dude, you’re not. You see, I use my conscience to decide how to behave. I don’t initiate violence against others, on my own or at someone else’s behest. You, on the other hand, accepted a job which requires you to unthinkingly obey immoral orders which tell you to initiate violence on a regular basis against people who didn’t harm or threaten anyone. You are the hired thugs of politicians. If you joined the force to “help people,” you picked the wrong goddamn profession.

No, you’re not me. What’s next? The Bloods and Crips doing a PR campaign, also ending in, “we are you”? This link mentions one of the ads, but doesn’t actually play the whole thing. I can’t figure out if it’s funny or sad how open they are about the fact that today everyone fears those parasitical dickweeds, but that they really want people joining their gang.

Anarchists Asking for “Papers”

I would love to watch a supposed Murican “anarchist” who condones “closed borders” explain his philosophical “principles” to someone who happened to be born in Mexico.

“Well, you see, I oppose the initiation of violence … except against you, because of where you were born, if you try to walk across a line made up by politicians. But I believe in freedom! Really! I believe you own yourself … although you need politicians’ written permission to be anywhere near my neighborhood.”

Among all the other examples of hypocrisy in the mind of “closed-border” “anarchists” is the bizarre fact that you can’t even know the moral way to treat another human being … without first asking to see his papers.

Please stop pretending to be an anarchist if you think that.

Liberty Only Requires Removing One Lie

We don’t actually need to make people know anything new, or be anything new, in order to drastically improve society. While it’s helpful that there are in-depth treatises on Austrian economics, and thorough explanations of the finer points of the libertarian/anarchist philosophy, and all sorts of attempts to describe alternatives to the statist versions of “protection,” “welfare,” etc., none of that is actually essential to achieving a voluntary, stateless society.

Eliminating the vast majority of oppression, extortion, injustice and murder in the world, and achieving widespread peaceful coexistence, does not require teaching the human race anything new; it only requires removing one lie that almost everyone has been taught: “authority.”

Does the Pope Advocate the Initiation of Violence?

The Pope is either a despicable liar or a complete ignoramus. Or possibly both. (How’s that for a gentle opening statement?) If you think that’s a tad harsh, read on.

Pope Francis has decided to publicly speak out against libertarianism, calling it “selfish” and “antisocial,” and saying that it “minimizes the common good.” Now, to give him as much of the benefit of the doubt as I can–because apparently the freaking POPE can’t be expected to actually become informed on things–if he was merely bashing certain individuals who wear the label “libertarian,” I might cut him some slack. But what he actually chose to bash, and warn the world about, is….

PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE THE INITIATION OF VIOLENCE.

Because that is the basis of libertarianism: the non-aggression principle. The Pope basically argued that it is “anti-social” to NOT advocate that your neighbors be forcibly robbed and controlled by “government,” and argued that it hurts the “common good” when the collective does NOT violently subjugate the individual. Bizarrely–but predictably–pretended concern for the little guy was the excuse for his position. Of course, as pretty much all libertarians know, the “greater good,” and putting the collective above the individual, has been the excuse for the mass violence committed by the most vicious tyrannies in history.

“To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.” – Joseph Goebbels (Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda)

Thanks for taking the side of Mao, Stalin and Hitler, Pope Francis.

But the icing on the poop cake was where he showed concern about a world in which “only the individual decides what is good and what is evil.” Because apparently he thinks that people deferring to an authoritarian power to make those decisions for them–instead of using their own consciences and moral judgment–has had a wonderful track record of creating peace and justice. Gack.

Divide-and-Conquer, Pack Mentality Bullshit

Today over 99% of the people in Syria are minding their own business and trying to live their lives in peace.

Today over 99% of the people in Russia are minding their own business and trying to live their lives in peace.

Today over 99% of the people in North Korea are minding their own business and trying to live their lives in peace.

Today over 99% of the people in the U.S. are minding their own business and trying to live their lives in peace.

Meanwhile, a very small percentage of authoritarian parasites in all of those places–including politicians and the hired thugs who work for them (cops, soldiers, tax collectors, bureaucrats, etc.)–are trying to butt into everyone else’s business, which is the main thing preventing people from peacefully living their lives.

If you think “Syria” is the enemy, or “Russia” is the enemy, or “North Korea” is the enemy, or if you think that any other political jurisdiction is the enemy, then you’re falling for the divide-and-conquer, pack-mentality bullshit that empowers the political parasites in all of those places.

In the end there is only one “us versus them” that matters: people who want to be free versus people who want to control and enslave others.

For People to Own Other People

How many people know all the individual events that happened which contributed to the end of chattel slavery in the U.S.? The “abolitionists” said things, wrote things, some helped slaves escape (e.g., the “Underground Railroad”), juries refused to convict people for violating fugitive slave laws, etc. No doubt there were countless arguments and bickering about the best tactics to use, when (or if) forcible resistance was justified, etc. But in the end, none of the details really mattered. What mattered is that we now have a population which, for the most part, thinks that it’s very not okay for people to own other people.

Likewise, all the individual skirmishes going on today, physical or philosophical–all the individual incidents of fascist injustice, all the bickering and in-fighting in the “freedom movement,” all the different beliefs and tactics–in the end they don’t really matter. What matters is achieving a society in which most people don’t think that “government” has an exemption from the thing about, “it’s very not okay for people to own other people.”

So don’t put too much stake in all the “movement” drama, or in any particular individual, organization, or event. Whatever else happens along the way, changing minds is what matters.

Should We Have Faith The Market Will Provide?

Do you know where your lunch today came from? No, I don’t mean from what store; I mean do you know where the ingredients all originated? Who grew or harvested them? Who put them together? And where?

Most of us (including me) don’t know, and don’t need to know. No one needed to show me an overall master plan for food production and distribution in order for me to feel confident that I would be able to find food today. Day after day I see the results of voluntary trade (which happens in spite of “government” interference, not beacuse of it), and I don’t particularly care what all the details were.

With that in mind, consider how you would answer someone who asked, “But if government didn’t control all food production and distribution, how would we eat?” If you’re like most people (including me), you don’t even know the specifics of how it already happens on a daily basis. Nor do you need to. But you could at least give a general answer, along the lines of, “Well, there’s a lot of money to be made growing and selling food, so plenty of people choose to do it–and do it very efficiently–on a voluntary basis.”

And that is the same honest answer that applies to any question about, “Without government, how would this be done?” The truth is, you don’t know. And neither do I. We might have predictions, or suggestions, but ultimately the details of it will probably end up being very different than whatever we can envision right now.

Does that mean people should just take it on faith that “the market” will provide? Well, based on a hell of a lot of past experience, yes. However, there’s a way to rephrase the question that should ease the concerns of that common statist lament: “Which of the following do you think is more likely to produce quality goods and services?: 1) Some politicians making a master plan and forcing everyone else to go along with it, or; 2) People being allowed to try any number of solutions, and you get to choose which ones (if any) you want to purchase.”

What’s really sad is that so many people are so profoundly clueless about economics that some might not be sure how to answer that question.

Teaching Children to Think

If children are actually taught to think, they will have the ability to apply logic to evidence, and determine what is true from what is false. But if children are taught only to memorize and repeat instead, then they may believe a lot of things, while understanding nothing. Even if they were taught to memorize true things (without also being taught to think), they will still only be taking such things on faith, and will have no rational way to defend their beliefs when challenged.

And that is how most people “think” today: they hear various assertions and opinions, and then, based largely on guesses, hunches and feelings, they choose which assertions and opinions to believe, and which to disbelieve. But they can’t coherently argue for or against anything, and can’t even explain why they believe what they believe.

The irony is that parents who really want their children to think the way the parents do will often try to intellectually bludgeon the children into believing things through indoctrination and repetition, instead of through reason. But if a child is not allowed and encouraged to figure things out themselves, to take every idea and doubt it, challenge it, put it to the test, and see if it holds up, then they can never make the truth their own, and can never actually know anything.

If you are right about things, then teaching your children how to collect evidence and apply logic will eventually lead them to agree with you. Only people who have flawed views need to try to make other people take things on faith.