Thursday, February 14, 2013

Sometimes, statists are just...

... well, decide for yourself.

A while back on facebook, an apparently "liberal" acquaintance from long ago had posted a link about some racist redneck preacher (my words, not his), who hates Obama because of his "race".  Yes, he does- no denying it.  But that doesn't mean all opposition to the Droner in Chief is racist in nature.

I replied "At least I'm consistent. My opposition to Obama is based on the exact same things my opposition to Bush the Decider (and all those puppeticians before him) was based on."

He responded, jokingly- I think- that I was opposed to just about everything.

So, I responded "Hardly. I'm only opposed to those who are opposed to liberty. Pretty much everyone and everything else- as long as you don't attack people or steal from them, enjoy yourself."

Then someone else piped up and told me "We call people like you agginneers. You are against everything. Now before you go off on me. I am only kidding."

OK.  Kidding.  That's fine, but it is hardly accurate, and jokes need to be based in reality to be humorous.

I replied: "I'm actually 'against' almost nothing. Nothing but theft and aggression, anyway."

I was then told that "Being opposed is the same as being against. You listed several things you are opposed to earlier."

Confused, since I don't deny being opposed to or against coercion and theft, I asked: "'Several things'? What are they? Besides aggression and theft, I mean.
Politics is based solely upon aggression and theft. It is using the coercive force of government to force others to do what you want. That is why the "economic method" of dealing with others is based upon voluntary agreements- if you don't wish to participate you can walk away. This way there are no losers, and usually both people win. The "political method" of dealing with others is where if you and someone else can't reach an agreement, one of you pulls out a gun (by proxy in most cases, by calling for government intervention) to force the other person to do what you want against his will. This way has a winner and a loser, every time.
I just make no exceptions for theft and aggression done under the guise of 'government'.
I hope that clear it up a little- I wouldn't want you to misinterpret what I am saying, or think badly of me. At least, not for the wrong reasons.

I then linked to "The Philosophy of Liberty" video and explained that it might do a better job of illustrating what I was talking about.

Then, I got a very typical statist brush off: "Not a big deal to me. Everyone is entitled to their own things to be opposed (against) to. Have a nice night!!"

Yeah, I suppose.  And I'm "opposed (against) to" cancer, too.  What thinking and ethical person wouldn't be?

Not all viewpoints are valid.

It reminds me of the person who threw a temper tantrum a few times because my refusal to be controlled amounted, in her eyes, to me controlling what she did.  Nope.  Sorry.  Not gonna buy it.




  1. This exchange reveals the typical statist mind-set of denial when it comes to state violence. Violence is the essence of the state, certainly its modus operandi. The most common excuse is that this is just "the way it is" or "everybody does it". Invoking "reality" and/or the common acceptance of an obvious wrong seems to be enough for a majority of the population to support the state. I used to think that this near universal support for a monopoly on violence wielded by lying psychopaths was due to ignorance and/or stupidity, but I now believe it is largely due to the lack of self-reflection concerning core beliefs; beliefs that they have been brainwashed into accepting as self-evident truths. What started out as being duped by others thus evolves into self-delusion in order to cope with profound cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately this condition is difficult to overcome because it is reinforced by peer pressure.

  2. All this just goes to show that state-run public schools are doing their job "educating" the kiddies. As I am wont to say lately: "All Hail the Emperial Government." (Dissenters will be shot.)

  3. I constantly get opposition from people who say I'm trying to "force" my opinion on them.

    My opinion being, force is wrong.

    Having had one or two actually try to support their position, their resistance is based upon the idea that because I oppose the use of force that funds the government programs that _they_like_, I am therefore obviously trying to force them to not have those programs.

    The concept of voluntary cooperation, that the people who like those programs coming together to fund them themselves, is beyond their comprehension.

    Literally, their objection is, "But who will build the roads???"