"Statist!" is Not an Argument

I watched the above debate between Larken Rose and Lauren Southern a while back.

The debate was a pretty frustrating watch as a whole. I've never liked Larken Rose, and I'm always skeptical of hot chicks like Lauren Southern in the alt right movement since it's so easy to con the lonely beta males on the right into sending money hand over fist on Patreon just by pretending to celebrate traditional values. Actual women with traditional values are so rare and precious, it's such a free way to make yourself valuable. Let's face it: hot chicks usually don't give two shits about the state of the world. Some do, yes. But mostly, they don't have a reason to since it doesn't matter whether we live in capitalism, socialism, whatever - a beautiful woman will always have a place to stay.

I call them tradthots.

But be that as it may.

Out of these two, in this particular debate, I found Lauren to be the one who performed way better. Larken did have an argument here and there - and on occasion, did manage to fluster Lauren a bit with clever wordplay - but for the most part, he was just pandering to the anarchist crowd and working for cheap pops.

He wasn't in front of an audience who he needed to win over. He was in front of an audience that claps enthusiastically whenever Larken called someone a statist. Because that's the magic word, and the audience was full of Pavlov's dogs.

Most of the smart people I know are libertarians/voluntaryists.

However, the movement is also riddled with a bunch of troglodytes that are, ironically enough, just as collectivistic as the collectivists they've dedicated their lives to laugh at.

You don't need sound arguments, logic, or reasoning to win these people over. All you need to do is laugh at "statists", which then results in pats on the back in the vein of "Yeah, aren't we awesome or what? Those stupid statists, am I right?"

But how did the movement really go forward?

What I really wanted to say here is that "Statist!" is not an argument. It's not. No matter how much anarchists want it to be, it's not. There's no difference between calling someone a statist and calling someone a poopyhead.

Except I don't think "poopyhead" is ever really considered to be an argument - unlike "statist".

Yes, to an anarchist, something being a "statist" thing to do means it's an undesirable thing to do because it's obviously at odds with the voluntaryist ideology, but for someone who doesn't live inside that bubble, it's just a buzzword.

I mean, hell, most people don't even know what it means to begin with.

What I mean is:

"So, I think we should do X, Y, Z."
"No! That's STATIST!"

This is fine between two anarchists. It's fine because the other person immediately catches on to what is meant by something being statist, and if the goal of both people in said conversation is to advance and further the idea of voluntaryism in society, it's obvious why something that is statist is not an option.

But.

When it's a conversation between an anarchist and a non-anarchist, it's an entirely different story.

If someone doesn't have an issue with statism, why would he or she be bothered by something being statist? There's no reason. It's silly to assume that "STATIST!" is some universal one-two-punch that can just be played in every conversation with every person ever.

"Sure showed that statist by calling his ideas statist! Go me!"

And I was like that, too.

In high school.

When I was 15.

I'm 29 now, and ready to move on from such childish antics, honestly. I'm just waiting for manchildren like Larken Rose to finally grow up, as well, to the point of having mature conversations that don't include yelling and name calling. Not to mention the fear mongering and appealing to feelings.

All in all, the entertaining aspect of the debate, for me, was the fact that I got to witness someone inside the voluntaryist bubble engaging with someone who I at least assume is pretty level-headed. Lauren is undoubtedly a fucking attention whore, which is one of the reasons I don't like her that much, but she came across so much better than Larken in this debate. This debate was a fun way to reflect on libertarian arguments from the perspective of an outsider.

And most of it came off as religious preaching.

I just think that it's something libertarians might want to fix if they ever wish to be taken anywhere near seriously. Just my two cents.

Freedom, as far as I can tell, can theoretically provide the most well-functioning society out of all the systems that have been tried, but I don't understand libertarians who take pride in the fact that they would happily watch their son drown in their neighbour's swimming pool because rescuing him would infringe upon the neighbour's property rights.

Because that's IDEOLOGICALLY PURE.

Like, who gives a fuck.