b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 1 http://reece.liberty.me/2015/03/09/25-statist-propaganda-phrase
In the discourse of statists, there is a group of phrases of which one or
more tend to be present in nearly every argument.
While this is not an exhaustive listing of that group, it does contain
twenty-five of the most common phrases that statists use in their arguments.
As propaganda has a tendency to be repetitive, some of these phrases
contain the same logical fallacies, and will therefore have similar
refutations. As such, the phrases are ordered so that earlier rebuttals also
apply to some later phrases.
“Our government”
“Our” is the possessive form of “we.” This phrase assumes that a
collective exists and has ownership of the government, which is another
collective. To exist is to have a concrete, particular form in physical
reality. To say that abstract objects exist is to beg the question of where
they exist, to which there is no answer because there is no empirically
observable entity. To say that collectives exist is beg the question of what
physical form they take, as all available physical forms are occupied by
the individuals which are said to comprise the collective. Thus, there is no
“we”; there is only you, I, and every other individual person. By the
same token, the government does not exist; each person, each building, each
gun, etc. exists. As such, the phrase “our government” is meaningless.
Additionally, to own something is to have a right of exclusive control over
it. Part and parcel of this right is the right to physically destroy that
which one owns. As governments use force to stop citizens who attempt to
physically destroy the state, the citizens are not the de facto owners of a
government.
“We are the government”
This phrase confuses society with government, which is as serious an error
as confusing an entire human body with a malignant tumor growing inside of
that body.
“The social contract”
A valid contract must be presented honestly and agreed to voluntarily,
without duress or fraud. The social contract does not meet this standard
because the state will initiate the use of force against anyone who does not
voluntarily enter into the social contract. The state is also not
automatically dissolved when it fails to uphold its obligations under the
social contract, so the presentation is dishonest if it even occurs at all.
Therefore, the social contract cannot be considered a legitimate contract.
“Our leader”
In the case of the state, we are not speaking of just any kind of leader,
but a ruler. No one owns the ruler, and the ruler falsely claims to own
those who are ruled, as the ruler claims a right to exclusive control over
the ruled and has no logically defensible basis for doing so. Thus the
leader is not “ours.”
“The leader of the free world”
“The free world” does not exist; each individual person exists. Again, we
are speaking of rulers rather than all types of leaders. Free people do not
have rulers; they rule themselves.
“You don’t have to like our leaders, but you should respect them”
Respect should be a response to virtue. Ordering the use of initiatory force
against people to control them is not virtuous behavior, therefore it is
unworthy of respect.
“You don’t have to like the president, but you should respect the office
of the presidency”
The office of the presidency, like any part of any government, is a violent
criminal institution. Violent criminality is unworthy of respect.
“Our military”
If the military is “ours,” then “we” should be able to exercise
exclusive control over it. But “we” neither command the military nor have
the freedom to destroy it. Thus it is not “ours”; it is a tool of the
ruling classes used to make it very difficult for citizens to violently
overthrow the government, provide a last line of defense for the state in
the form of martial law should the citizens succeed in violently
overthrowing the government, and present a deterrent to other rulers
elsewhere in the world who might seek to take over the state and capture the
tax base for themselves.
“We need to make the world safe for democracy”
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who gets eaten. This sort of
behavior should not be made safe; it should be made dangerous by giving the
sheep means to resist the wolves. Some will say that this is what a
constitutional republic does, but this is false. A constitutional republic
is three wolves and a sheep voting for a representative among them to decide
who gets eaten. To claim that establishing a constitutional republic
counters the negative aspects of democracy is to claim that simply by making
a chocolate cake double-layered, one can magically turn it into something
that is not chocolate.
“You don’t have to like what the police/military are doing, but you should
support them”
Again, respect should be a response to virtue. Just as ordering the use of
initiatory force against people to control them is not virtuous behavior,
carrying out said orders is also not virtuous. Therefore it is unworthy of
respect.
“The homeland/Our nation”
As only individuals are capable of action, only individuals may rightly own
property. There is no such thing as public property; there is only privately
owned property and property which has been stolen or otherwise interfered
with by agents of the state. Thus, there is no homeland or nation because
these require collective ownership.
“National defense/security”
There is no such thing as national security apart from each individual
person’s security because there is no such thing as a nation apart from
each individual person.
“It’s the law”
In a statist society, the laws are a collection of opinions written down by
sociopaths who have managed to either win popularity contests or murder
their competitors and enforced at gunpoint by thugs in costumes. The
implication of the phrase “it’s the law” is that this state of affairs is
both necessary and proper, rather than inherently illogical and immoral.
Also implied is that the law is somehow sacrosanct and immutable, which is
clearly false because the aforementioned sociopaths both frequently alter
the laws and routinely disregard the laws they make for everyone else.
“Voting is your voice in government”
This statement assumes that there is no voter fraud, that votes are counted
correctly, that vote results cannot be altered by courts, and that
politicians will do what voters tell them to do. Each of these assumptions
has an unfulfilled burden of proof at best, and is demonstrably false on
several occasions at worst.
“Voting is a civic duty”
A legitimate duty can only come from a legitimate right or contract. There
is no such right or contract that could create such a duty. In addition,
there can be no legitimate duty to perform an immoral act. Voting is immoral
because it helps to impose violent rulers upon peaceful people and gives
the appearance of legitimacy to institutions which deserve none.
“If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”
This is exactly wrong. People who do not vote are the only people who have a
right to complain. Those who vote for people who win elections are
endorsing politicians and their minions who will engage in activities under
color of law that would be punished as crimes if you or I did them. Those
who vote for people who lose elections may not be vicariously responsible
for the crimes of state agents in the same degree, but participating in the
system helps to create the appearance of legitimacy for that which is
inherently illegitimate.
“The public good/The good of society”
Society, or “the public,” does not exist. Each individual person exists.
As such, there is no such thing as the public good or the good of society.
There is only what is good for each individual person.
“For the children”
Those who wield state power subject children to forced indoctrination that
leaves them with few marketable skills and restrict the ability of suitable
guardians to serve as their parents. They do not care about children as
anything other than a means to shame and guilt people into handing over more
liberty and property to the state.
“Government is necessary”
This is a positive claim which carries a burden of proof. By itself, this is
a claim asserted without logic or evidence and may therefore be dismissed
without logic or evidence.
“Anarchy is chaos”
The word “anarchy” comes from Greek ???????, meaning “without rulers,”
or more accurately, “without beginning to take the lead.” It does not mean
an absence of order, rules, or structure. The state, on the other hand, is
chaos plus organization.
“Taxes are the price for a civilized society”
This is exactly wrong. Taxes are the price for failing to create a civilized
society based on voluntary solutions, and the degree of taxation
corresponds to the degree of failure.
“Paying taxes is a civic duty”
Taxation is immoral because it violates the non-aggression principle,
private property rights, and freedom of association. There can be no
legitimate duty to comply with immorality.
“We owe it to ourselves”
This would make one both a creditor and a debtor in the same transaction.
This is a contradiction, therefore it is false.
“We’re going to hold them accountable”
This is contrary to the nature of the state. The state apparatus allows some
people to do what is ordinarily forbidden for anyone to do. Thus, the
objective is to avoid responsibility for the commission of crimes. Avoiding
responsibility is the opposite of being held accountable.
“Who will build the roads?”
If we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton? It does not matter. What
matters is that slavery is morally indefensible. So it is with government
and who will provide services in its absence. Also, it is not necessary to
know the correct answer to a question in order to know that a particular
answer is incorrect. And who will build the death camps? The state also
provides intolerable disservices which would almost certainly not occur in
its absence. | b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 2 “We need to make the world safe for democracy”
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who gets eaten. | b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 3 “Voting is your voice in government”
This statement assumes that there is no voter fraud, that votes are counted
correctly, that vote results cannot be altered by courts, and that
politicians will do what voters tell them to do. Each of these assumptions
has an unfulfilled burden of proof at best, and is demonstrably false on
several occasions at worst. |
|
