Dissecting the Statist Mind

in statism •  8 years ago  (edited)

When I describe what statists believe sometimes people think I’m exaggerating or trying to make it sound even more ridiculous than it is. Because of that, when I can I like to use actual examples, from actual statists, as a study in how the indoctrinated mind works (or doesn’t work, as the case may be).

There was one comment in particular under my Steemit article yesterday which so succinctly expressed the insanity of statism that I wanted to dissect and analyze it separately here. In my article I asked those who oppose voluntaryism/anarchism, “which involuntary stuff do you want forcibly imposed upon ME?” One commenter responded with this:

~*~

“I want the government to forcibly impose non-violence on you. To prevent you from gathering a bunch of thugs, forming a militia and forcing me into a dictatorship. Make no mistake, all your cries about ‘freedom’ are really an attempt to control the world and force everyone else to live the way you believe is best.”

~*~

That was his entire first comment. (I will let the commenter decide whether to share his identity here or not.) There is so much in those few sentences that is accidentally profound, and also insane.

1 - Given the context, the first sentence was rather odd. My entire article was advocating voluntary, non-violent society, so obviously I’m not one of the ones who needs non-violence “forcibly imposed” upon me.

2 - His first sentence is just a weird, convoluted way of saying, “If someone attacks someone else, force should be used to stop the attacker.” I agree with that. That happens to be exactly in line with the non-aggression principle, voluntaryism, and my entire article. But it is not in line with any “government” anywhere, ever. Every “government” is an aggressor, even if it sometimes stops other aggressors. So to speak of “government” forcibly imposing non-violence on people is just profoundly schizophrenic. While you’re at it, why not say that we need car-jackers so they can stop our cars from being stolen?

3 - The second sentence is equally bizarre in that it is a perfect description of the evils of “government,” although used as an argument in favor of “government.” Apparently he wants a huge powerful, well-armed gang of thugs … to make sure no one forms a huge, powerful, well-armed gang of thugs. Do I really need to explain why that argument is an epic fail?

4 - Similarly, the underlying tone of his entire comment fits well within the common statist template of, “But if we didn’t have government, we might end up with … government!” If the worst case scenario you can come up with for what I advocate (a free society) is that it might turn into what YOU advocate (a society controlled by a ruling class), you need to work on your argument.

5 - It’s humorous that he thinks that voluntaryism would lead to a “dictatorship,” but he thinks “government” wouldn’t. Not a big fan of history, apparently.

6 - Notice how he is also saying that his goal is to prevent someone ELSE from “gathering a bunch of thugs” and controlling everything. And his solution to that? For HIM to gather a bunch of thugs, call them “government,” and have them control everything. (My apologies if I insulted anyone’s intelligence by bothering to point out the glaring hypocrisy going on there.) If someone else then applied his exact same “logic” against him, and built a DIFFERENT bunch of thugs, then you have … several millennia of violent conflict and fighting over authoritarian power—i.e., human history. He is demonstrating the exact mentality which causes war and oppression: “I need an all-powerful gang enforcing MY preferences on everyone, so they don’t impose THEIRS on ME!” Immoral, hypocritical, and stupid, all in one shot.

7 - Then comes his grand finale, which is as glaring an example of psychological projection as you will ever see: he proclaims that, by advocating non-aggression and a voluntary society, I am really trying to “control the world and force everyone else to live the way [I] believe is best.” Hmmm. So apparently he thinks I will seize control of a non-existent ruling class, and use its non-existent authority and non-existent power to enslave the world. Meanwhile, he is directly and specifically advocating the existence of a ruling class which will “force everyone else to live the way [he] believe[s] is best,” as his own comments obviously demonstrate.

Ironically, unlike the commenter, the only thing I want force used for is to defend against aggression—as his first sentence implies. He didn’t even seem to notice how much he was arguing with himself. But that brings us to the most important part, something well beyond “Your argument sucks!” (which it does). What must exist in the mind of statists for them to make such convoluted, non-sensical, self-contradictory arguments? I consider myself an expert on that question, not only because I have spent the last twenty years studying the insanity of statism and the lunacy of the statist thought process, but also because … (swallows pride) … I WAS a statist for many years before that.

In short, statists want a mystical all-powerful good thing to add to the equation of reality that will save the world from the dangers that imperfect human beings create. They don’t trust their fellow man, and uncertainty scares them. Up to that point I can sympathize. If there was some magical force for good which could somehow stop all the bad people, I’d be all for it! But the statist’s solution to the unknown, and to the unpredictability of flawed mankind, is to take SOME of those flawed human beings and give them societal permission to forcibly control everyone else. As if that might improve things.

They don’t see the insanity of this because they don’t even think of “government” as mere mortals. The way statists speak of “law” and “authority” and “government”—as if those things are something OTHER than just threats of violence coming from a group of human beings—shows that they are trying to hallucinate into existence some super-human savior which has both super-human powers and super-human virtues. They will often even say, “People can’t be trusted!” My response to that is always to ask them which species will be running this “government” thing they say we need. Might it be …. PEOPLE?

If you understand that “government” is nothing but people, and that all the pseudo-religious documents and political rituals don’t make them into anything more, then you can’t help but see how patently insane all statist arguments are. (Personally, I’m embarrassed by how long it took me to notice that and to outgrow my own authoritarian indoctrination.) The comments dissected above are just one example of how the authoritarian mindset makes no sense at all unless “government” is a DEITY.

In summary, statism consists entirely of weak-minded, indoctrinated cowards hoping that a mythical, all-powerful god (“government”) will come along and protect them from an uncertain world while forcibly imposing their own preferences and values onto everyone else. I know, because I was one of them. Thankfully, I eventually escaped the cult of “government.”

And on that note, I will leave you with this video:

STATISM: THE MOST DANGEROUS RELIGION

(Incidentally, of all of “my” videos, that might be my favorite, even though I never actually gave that talk, and even though I didn’t make that video. Many thanks to Harvey Lester who collected bits and pieces from different things I’ve done and compiled them together into something more clear and succinct than any talk I’ve ever actually delivered!)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I'm telling you. The anarchists are everywhere. Every time I go on a roat trip, I see their signs:

That's funny. Whenever I'm driving anywhere with my family and we see one of those, we all start chanting, "End road work! End road work!"

I prefer the end of work than the end of the road. :)

Not all work is pointless drudgery - some people actually get paid to do work that they enjoy or it at least results in a sense of accomplishment.

what work is done on the end of a road?

Leaving the religious belief in government behind was one of the most liberating feelings Ive ever experienced. To be able to stand on principle and say I'm anti ruling class is beautiful. For a long time I had unclear thought loops about society and couldn't put my finger on the current situation but now my worlds more transparent. Its like the zoom in watching a dramatic scene where the evil culprit is realized. Sitting there like "Holy shit Ive been lied to about the most important principle in life" and that is no one has the RIGHT to threaten and violate any body. Tools like these and articles written to break down the illogical and contradictory arguments against a stateless society help with the awakening from this terrible nightmare. Shout out to Larken and the internet. You guys are the best! hahaha

Loading...

Here's the sticking point. You live in a society with a government that you don't want. The catch is that most people living with that government want it. We've decided that the government provides things that its easiest or practical or logical for government to provide. Like police, public schools, etc.
I understand you think there's a better way of providing those things. What you fail to understand is that without the state as a check, there is nothing stopping me from creating my own army to build my own power base. All this shit sounds great in theory, but that's where it ends.

1 - "Government" IS you creating your own army to build your own power base. 2 - Without the belief in the LEGITIMACY of the ruling class, ONE BULLET stops you from doing that. 3 - "Government" doesn't provide anything. It forces you to provide its version of "services." 4 - In a free society, no one would stop you from making YOURSELF subservient to, and dependent upon, a bunch of political crooks. You just wouldn't be allowed to force OTHERS into your bad plan with you.

What do you suppose motivates mindless statists like laconicflow to continually troll YOUR critiques of statism?

You laid out an easy-to-understand, rational rebuttal of statist claims/assertions, and yet laconic comes here and makes...THE SAME DISCREDITED CLAIMS/ASSERTIONS!

With all of the actual injustice and evil being perpetrated by THE STATE, not only do laconic & his ilk choose not to criticize the crimes of the state, but instead they criticize YOU for simply pointing out plain truths...they're mentally-ill!

Its like the statists think to themselves, "Hmmmmm...over there is this group of people going around destroying/degrading the lives of 100's of MILLIONS of other, innocent people, and...here is someone saying that human interactions should be peaceful and voluntary...clearly I need to spend time and effort fighting these insane ideas about peace, voluntarism, and equality!"

By the way, a master duping most of his slaves into loving the plantation doesn't make slavery righteous.

@larkenrose Clearly I'm not going to make you reevaluate your life's work. But here's what I'm trying to say.

  1. I can buy a type of anarchy working in very small communities where everyone knows everyone else.
  2. I cannot buy an anarchist model working to . . . "govern" a society the size of the USA, or Britain
    or RoadIsland, for that matter.
  3. No power creates a power vaccume, and I've never ever ever read of a situation in history where a power vaccume went unfilled.
  4. So you create an anarchist society. I have the charisma to create a military force. We show up and literally, rather than medaforicly enslave you and your people.
    4A. The Pax Rmana and now the Pax Americana prevent me and my army from doing this to either state, which is half the point of government..
  5. If a person knows all the facts about, to pick where I live, how the United States Government works, most people will describe government as at the worst a necisary evil, and at best a positive institution.
  6. Europe after Rome and before the establishment of nation states was worse by any measure you can name than it was under rome. What were, in essence, small towns fought one another for power and this went on for a thousand years.
  7. I've never come across a human society in all my reading of history that functioned without a government. There are many different forms of government but they all include a state monopoly on , violence, taxes, some kind of law.
  8. To me, this is significant.
  9. If you don't like this government you can move to a different society with different or less government, but I know of nowhere in the world where you can live under no government.

The "charisma to create a military force"? In a society that doesn't believe anyone has the right to rule? And for some reason, the HUNDRED MILLION armed people here now just let you?

Yes, humanity has been suffering from the insane delusion of "authority" for a very long time. Most of your argument is you demonstrating how you are incapable of imagining anything else. That's your problem, not mine.

We've also never enjoyed a society free of cancer. Its a noble goal though.

@laconicflow and @larkenrose:

In my years discussing the possibility of a free society with statists (in other words, with pretty much everybody else), they have generally defaulted to the argument that since one or another horde would always invade a free society and impose its will upon it, that's the way it is, which is to say, the ultimate defense of the state is that initiated violence will always prevail over voluntary cooperation, so, in essence, accept the state as a fact of life and go about your life as best you can under its auspices.

Nice argument, i.e.,* immorality rules.*

It's what libertarian economist David Friedman (Milton's son) called a free society's "hard problem of national defense" — http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf — which he believed was insurmountable. Yet it was only a couple of weeks ago that, here on Steemit, the solution to the hardproblem was discussedhttps://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-first-interview-with-jim-bell-of-assassination-politics-since-released-from-jail — i.e., that a free society could defend itself by resorting to the ultimate mode of *asymmetric warfare" — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

And now, 21 years after this visionary's essay was published, the technology is in place and only awaits its "execution," with the understanding that the loss of life would be infinitesimal in comparison to that inflicted by the status — as in statist — quo and that the world could be transformed accordingly.

That said, let me close by pointing laconicflow to Larken's wonderful The Tiny Dot, which is a classic, in my opinion, as your video above will hopefully be.

Meanwhile, you both might glean something from the following:

https://steemit.com/anarchy/@freeradical/the-nature-and-origin-of-the-state

Great post Larken and totally agree. It seems some Statist will always claim that the majority wanting A = A is good/justified.

They use the great royal "We" as if somehow being a majority makes your logic moot because you are a minority.

They fail to recognize that in the process they betray themselves by using words and arguments that have been taught to them and refuse to think for themselves lest they admit a mistake.

I've learned not to take statists too seriously and not to spend to much time on the net :)

You honestly don't need the state as a check, all you need is a group made up of volunteers that function like a militia that are well armed. To claim that we need the state as a check is to make the claim that it would be impossible for people to organize themselves voluntarily to defend themselves against aggressors which is simply not the case. Let's just take Rojava as a perfect example where people from different backgrounds and faiths organize themselves against outside aggressors even at the most extreme situations. Check out this link for more information. http://bravetheworld.com/2015/06/02/anarchy-lives-rojava/

The British colonies freed themselves with citizen militias, not the Continental Army. Washington was great at talking his way our of capture, but terrible at warfare. He trusted regimentation, standard methods of warfare. He did not trust the militia, but later after numerous successes of theirs he tolerated them. The militia broke all his rules of warfare, and succeeded. He got the credit, at least in the history books that survived; the books promoted by the state, for the state, in state schools.

But it was volunteers who gathered spontaneously, fought without a central plan, without coercion, on their own (without Army), and used non-traditional guerrilla tactics to best the regular British Army. They disbanded and regrouped on their own judgement. Is this generally known? What popular literature tells this in no uncertain terms? None. Why? Could we be living in a very controlled world?

I think until someone can come along and address the concerns/fears that people have of "no government" things will continue as they are. I personally don't have a full grasp on this concept. Maybe its from our current way of life being shoved down my throat. But I like the concept. For instance, someone who may not understand the concept says "what about our infrastructure? Our roads?" "Who will protect us from other countries? " "From ourselves?" I've never read or heard anyone ever address this, they just go into some rhetoric speech. Address concerns like this and get some attention! Personally I think there is a need for some level of government but the power should be with the people, not over the people.

I hate driving. Traffic has ruined auto travel. Who is responsible for the roads? The construction delays never end, with double penalties everywhere. And the planned "obsolete before built" layouts are built at a snail's pace.
I am going to quit using them and patronize their competitors. Oh wait, these govt. roads are all we have, no competition there.
As a voluntaryist, every time I advocate self governance instead of monopoly govt. forced on everyone at gun point, I get: "But who will build the roads?"

@arnolds if you like concepts that sound nice in theory, see communism. My questions are the ones you just asked. Its not that I couldn't draw up a voluntarist solution to the roads and the police, its just that I'm not radical enough to want to try it in practice.

"Government" without power over the people is not "government." A controlled "government" is not a"government."

Wouldn't a government with power OVER the people be known as a tyranny?

Yes. Yes it would.

Those concerns are addressed in a myriad of ways by many, many people. However, the indoctrinated tend not to hear any answer that doesn't involve using force to control people. No one can make you listen and understand.

For instance, there are lots of private roads. Private highways collect tolls and use those tolls to maintain the highway. On a smaller scale, I've spent much of my life living on property that is accessed by private roads, serviced by the people that live on them. In one case, it was several miles of dirt/gravel road in a mountainous area. Roads can, will, and have happened without governments killing and stealing.

Well, as long as we're making wishes, I'd also like someone to explain why it's acceptable, legitimate and / or morale that I was deceptively recruited into this demonic 'state' thing and apparently I'm not allowed to leave.

Loading...

Cognitive dissonance + Stockholm Syndrome = laconicflow

Now I understand why I was never a statist. Being a preacher's kid and seeing the reality behind the rhetoric inoculated me against the insanity of all religious dogmas. Spirituality is an individual thing, and so is morality. You can't escape the responsibility of making your own moral choices by having faith in some preacher or politician making those choices for you.

I'm gonna find the person who wrote the comment so I can start following and upvoting him or her.

It won't be difficult. Look up my last post, about "The Market." It's good for the weak-minded to find others like them to make them feel more comfortable in their ignorance.

I didn't insult you but go ahead and do your thing.

You insulted yourself, and you didn't even know it.

Is the opposite of a statist a dynamist? I'd be more for that. A dynamic perspective.

Larken that video was absolutely amazing! Thank you and I look forward to meeting you at Anarchapulco!

I can't get over the idea of anyone "forcing non-violence" on people. According to Gandhi non-violence is the weapon of the strong which can only be used with great discipline and inner conviction. It can not be forced upon anyone. Then the whole concept of an "anarchist dictatorship" makes little sense either. How are people who don't believe in government going to create a government that has absolute control? That's the job of statists not anarchists.

Playing Statist's Advocate here: Sure individual people can be bad, we just need a reliable system of law to keep everyone honest. Perhaps we could tweak the Constitution a bit and come up with the perfect system. We'd probably have to make some changes on how the voice of the People is heard and obeyed by Government. Assuming we could come up with a system that actually represented what the People want done, that is, it ONLY did what the majority of the People want done, and we had effective ways to insure this and keep politicians honest, wouldn't THAT solve the problems with Government? I think you need to address this to bring the Constitution supporters around. This is the kind of thoughts they have in their head and I don't think they are even listening when you talk about other stuff.

A fine example of doing what the majority wants is ... gangrape. Democracy and majority rule is inherently immoral. If "government" actually represented the people--only doing things the people have a right to do themselves--it wouldn't BE "government" anymore.

The constitution is just fine. It needs no "tweaking".
Problem is that it's pretty much ignored.
"No responsibility for advice not followed"....and like that.

The constitution created the USA's central govt...so, no, its not "just fine". And, imagine that...words on an old piece of paper (which no one living today, or even back then, agreed to abide by) from the 18th century hasn't stopped sociopaths/psychopaths w/political power from doing pretty much whatever they want...

Like I said. The constitution is being ignored.
You can't hold something responsible if you ignore it.

Like I said...words on an old piece of paper that no one ever agreed to be bound by...

Ah Contaire. They DID agree to be bound. It was called a "constitutional convention" and then each state ratified it.

If you have evidence (like a signed contract, sworn statement, or video footage) that anyone living (or dead even) agreed to be bound by the constitution, please present it. If you can prove how other people have the authority to bind me or anyone else to an agreement, please do so. Otherwise just admit you're a fascist authoritarian who has no need for logic or morality.

@larkenrose LMAO !!! Another great post ! When I read that guys comment I was like WTF ? (And these people are actually allowed to breed ! OMG !), lol
As you debunk his statement, it is apparent that these kind of people actually BELIEVE the crap they are saying .... To me, this a shining example of "failed Logic" that is so ingrained in people these days, and really, cannot be argued or shouldn't be attempted as it will be a useless cause. His post was just plain funny, in a very sad kind of way.
I also liked that you used the term EVIL below your "Pop Quiz" pic "These dudes accomplished EVIL crap ..." Very well done Indeed !
Have a free ! day ! keep up the good work !

maybe if we just let them argue with themselves long enough, they'll come to some kind of decent conclusion. i wouldn't count on it.

Religion will always exist because it is easier to deceive someone than to convince him he was deceived.

Something strange just happened when I tried to "up vote" this article. It went from 446.26 to 437.26. (The $ amount went DOWN $9). What the hell is going on? Is Larken the victim of a hack? Or am I?

I see that often enough. My guess is that downvotes from rustled little bitches are the cause. It's downvotes from rustled big bitches you gotta look out for. ;)

Yeah, it's just coincidence, that someone else was down-voting at the same time. Or the inflation thing was happening (a planned part of the system). I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually you making it go down ... unless that's just how much your opinion is worth. (Just kidding.) :)

@larkenrose
It's neither. You have no downvotes, no one is attacking you.
The price you see is based on a sliding 7 day average of the value of steem and that value has been on a decline. You're being paid in steem and between the updates the price is declining.

Thus me saying, "Or the inflation thing was happening (a planned part of the system)." But yes, people can and do downvote. See that little flag? See what it says when you point at it?

anarchists vs statists, can't wait for a good argument

Rule by force is the problem.
Keep working, stop paying is the short circuit to it.
http://marcstevens.net is the monkey wrench.