Government: The God of Statism

AronRa, a popular outspoken atelatheist, whose work (in general) I love, defines a religion as “a faith-based belief system, including the notion that some element of self, be it memories or consciousness …a soul, perhaps… continues beyond the death of the physical body; transcends and survives that…”. I see no mention of belief in a god being a requirement for something to be a religion. But, do they really not believe in a god?

An Atelatheist Exposes the Religion of Statism

Yes, belief in the State results in buildings being built, people molested due to “laws”, and other physical effects in the real world, but those are no more proof of the existence of the State than churches, inquisitions, martyrs, or charities are proof of the existence of God. People who believe something do things based on that belief. Such is the nature of belief. Beliefs have effects on the behavior of people who believe, even when the belief is in something imaginary.

Guilty Statists?

How much guilt does the “average statist” have for their beliefs, and how much slack should we cut them? I’ve been having an interesting discussion with Jim Henshaw, the former Chair of the Hawaiian LP, recently of regions closer. He says I “come across as a bit unforgiving at times“. And, I can see that. I’m pretty sure this has caused me to lose followers and financial supporters. So, I asked his advice.

Statism’s First Casualty Is the Truthful Use of Language

States engage not only in conquest, plunder, and oppression, but also—in order to create conditions in which the populace is rendered less likely to resist a state’s abuses or rebel against it—in pervasive bamboozlement. Those who support the state ideologically tend to engage in chronic misrepresentation of what the state does and how it does it. So, not only war—the characteristic state action—but statism in general makes truth the first casualty of its claims, proposals, programs, and projects.

Standing Alone

If someone’s “beliefs” are the result of fear, or popularity contests, or any other outside influence, instead of the result of personal contemplation and soul-searching, then that person is likely to change his “beliefs” at the drop of a hat, because he has no real principles or convictions.

Points of Ignorance

I don’t expect a person to be an expert in everything, but when you are completely ignorant in some area, you have a responsibility to not open your yap and ignorantly preach at others. It’s why I respected Stephen Hawking’s contributions to science, but discounted his opinions about government. In one area he was an expert; in the other he was as ignorant as any gutter drunk. And I could point out example after example.