The parasites count on the deterrent effect that comes from the threat of punishment to control people’s behavior, at least to some extent. Without a specific “or else” part, a “law” would just be a suggestion. “You’re not allowed to do that! But if you do, we’re not going to do anything to you anyway.” What would that deter? Nothing.
Category: Most Dangerous Superstition
Disobedient Subjects
The primary threat to any ruling class is the possibility that some of its victims will disobey and resist. No, the CIA doesn’t give a crap about someone in a cave in Afghanistan.
Should Your Default Response be Authoritarian Violence?
Here’s hoping that every advocate of “closed borders” loses his passport while out of the country, and comes face to face with the bullshit authoritarian violence he condones.
When So-Called Anarchists Look to the State as Savior
This is a crisis! Government needs to act! Look at all these scary stories about incidents of immigrants committing violence! Is that what you want?! If you oppose closed borders, you must approve of the violence going on! Sure, not all people trying to immigrate here intend to do nasty things, but some are going to, and the only way to be safe is to enforce laws stopping anyone from crossing the border, or at least requiring that people can only cross the border if they get permission from government first!
There Needs to be a Big Wall
I don’t speak the language of the people there, and few of them spoke English. Literally hundreds of people had the opportunity to attack me, rob me, or kill me. None did. That did not surprise me. Several of them gave me food and other stuff, in exchange for pieces of paper. Words were not needed for that to happen. Mutual respect and courtesy abounded, as did mutually beneficial interaction.
Excusing Aggression Does Not a Libertarian Make
“Well mostly I want people to be free, and mostly I want government leaving people alone, but in this case, for the good of society, I think it’s necessary for government aggression to be widely used, because the alternative is too scary!”
Have the Balls to Admit Your Bigotry
There are a number of people who are xenophobic, nationalist, racist dumbasses, who want the violence of “government” used to keep everyone away who isn’t quite like them. However, in that category are two types: 1) those who openly admit what they think and what they condone, and; 2) those who use “code” rhetoric, intentionally speak in vague euphemisms, and pretend to not be what they are. I can’t decide which I like less.
Civic Religion Impedes Clear Thinking
Even I sometimes forget how thoroughly the religious belief in political “authority” mangles people’s ability to think. For example, a certain statist just expressed genuine confusion and bafflement when trying to comprehend this: Sometimes I don’t want “A” to happen, and yet I don’t feel justified in using force (on my own or via “government”) to prevent “A” from happening.
Logic Takes a Back Seat to Fear
It seems like at least 90% of the time, people who “disagree” with me don’t bother arguing against what I actually said. Instead, they throw out some tangent or irrelevant assertion or claim. It makes it rather difficult to have a rational debate when the “other side” isn’t actually saying anything about the original point.
Lock Up Young Men for Safety
Allowing young men – let’s say age 18 to 23 – to be free increases the crime rate, as young men commit a disproportionately high percentage of violent crimes. Doesn’t that fact justify locking up all men between the ages of 18 and 23? If it would dramatically reduce violent crime, and therefore reduce overall aggression, wouldn’t that mean that such an action constitutes moral defensive force?