Principles and Predictions

People who have embraced voluntaryism usually do so based on logical, philosophical and moral grounds, and their arguments reflect that. Statists, however, almost never base their arguments on such things. Instead, they almost always “argue” via fear-mongering and dire predictions. To put it another way, voluntaryists argue from principles and statists respond with predictions. For example, I’ve seen many hundreds of variations of this:

Anarchist: “People can’t delegate rights they don’t have, so government can’t be legitimate.”
Statist: “But if we didn’t have government there would be violent chaos!”

Note that the “response” is not actually a response at all to the original statement. It is an unrelated assertion, analogous to this:

“Santa Claus isn’t real.”
“But without Santa Claus a lot of children wouldn’t get presents!”

Of course, Santa won’t magically materialize for the sake of worthy children, making such a response irrelevant and logically ridiculous. Likewise, dire predictions about what would happen without “government” can’t magically make it possible for people to delegate rights they don’t have. Statists don't even try to argue otherwise, but instead just dodge the point entirely and respond based on fear, because the idea of a stateless society doesn’t fit within their familiar paradigm.

Unfortunately, anarchists often take the bait and allow statists to change the subject, moving on to argue about how society could work without a ruling class, like someone explaining how children could get Christmas presents even without Santa Claus. This is precisely what the statist hopes for, since making wild guesses and baseless predictions is a lot easier and a lot less existentially disturbing than pondering actual philosophical concepts.

It’s important to note that in most cases, such a reaction from a statist is not because he is intentionally being dishonest, or is consciously trying to change the subject. It is simply the result of him reflexively avoiding ideas that make him uncomfortable. However, that is why it is especially important for voluntaryists to not allow themselves to be dragged off topic.

Having debated literally thousands of statists over the last twenty years, I personally find that even the most basic question about morality, logic or principles often needs to be asked half a dozen times—or more—before a statist will respond in any sort of relevant way. Quite literally, their subconscious is desperately trying to avoid even hearing or comprehending what any voluntaryist is actually asking, because deep down inside they know that they have no substantive rebuttal, and that puts their entire view of reality at risk.

“WITHOUT GOVERNMENT WE WOULD ALL BE KILLING AND EATING EACH OTHER!!!”

One method of response is to keep the discussion on point while allowing the statists to hang onto their psychological “security blankets,” by accepting their dire predictions for the sake of argument. For example: “Okay, assuming we would all be violent animals without government—so obviously let’s not try that—can you nonetheless tell me whether people can delegate to others rights that the people didn’t have to begin with?”

But be warned, the extent some people will go to in order to avoid facing their own cognitive dissonance can be downright scary. You may find yourself asking the same simple, basic, perfectly clear question a dozen times, only to have the statist predict the end of the world, and then insult you, and then complain about the question, and then voice all sorts of fears, and then condemn you, and then say he already answered the question, and then wish for horrible things to happen to you, and so on.

No, I am not exaggerating at all. I can’t even count how many times over the past two decades I’ve gone through that with statists. In case you aren't yet familiar with the profound mental contortions that the belief in “authority” naturally leads to, I will leave you with an exercise that involves practicing patience, practicing staying on topic, studying human psychology, and fully understanding the insanity of statism. My challenge to you is this—pick your favorite statist, and see if you can get him to provide direct, specific answers to the following questions:

1 - Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2 - Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3 - Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4 - When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5 - When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?

Don’t set your sights too high. Don’t bother even hoping for rational or consistent answers. That’s asking too much. Just see if you can get on-point answers at all, no matter how irrational or bizarre. If you can get a direct answer from a statist to even one of those questions, congratulations! Even that is not an easy task. If you get two or three, outstanding! If you get four actual answers, you deserve a medal! And if you get a direct answer to all five, you will have achieved a miracle!

(P.S. If you ask a voluntaryist those questions, they won't dodge, evade, obfuscate, complain and have tantrums. They will probably just say, “No, no, no , yes, and no, in that order.” Because being intellectually honest, and being morally and logically consistent, is really not all that difficult once you've given up the belief in “authority.”)

(P.P.S. After you’ve tried to get straight answers from a statist, take a moment to ponder how weird it is that it would be this difficult just to get people to state the specifics of their own position. That will give you some idea of the depth, power and insanity of the authoritarian indoctrination that infects most people’s minds.)