You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Gaslighting: How Statists Alienate Anarchists
When an anarchist says murder, theft, and coercion are immoral regardless of who you are, statist often respond by saying that those ideas are utopian, impractical, and extreme. What they really mean to say is that they don't think civilization or any services provided by society could exist without somebody holding a gun to your head, but there is nothing civil about holding a gun to somebody's head to get what you want, in fact it is the opposite of civil.
Which always begs the question: under what circumstances would you hold a gun to my head for not doing what you say? If they're just going to initiate force to get what they want either way, how is it even a debate, right?
The only legitimate circumstance would be to stop another individual from INITIATING force as covered by the non-aggression principle which does not exclude defensive force. This is only a debate because a majority of the population still has a belief in "authority" due to roughly 15,000 hours of indoctrination that they are subjected to.
I think most statists would not hold a gun to your head personally, but they have no problem letting the government do it for them. They seem to believe everything the government does must be somehow morally right. Or they just don't think about it, because "that's the way it's always been".