Sunday, March 09, 2014

Statist on Exhibition

I realize this blog post is from a long time ago, but someone recently posted it on Facebook and I made the mistake of reading it.

(I wonder if its author is the same doofus who made a similar comment to me a few days back.)

Anyway, after reading the painfully ignorant post I was thinking to myself "Can statists really be this stupid?"... and the answer, obviously, is yes. Yes they can.

Just one example of the absurdity from the post "...[The Philosophy of Liberty videoillustrates libertarianism with abstract stick figures representing people devoid of race, gender, and historical context."

Well, yeah, because "we libertarians", as opposed to the author, aren't racist, or sexist, nor do we seek to blame and punish people for things they didn't do- such as things done by their long-dead ancestors centuries before the people you would punish for the acts (or their grandparents) were even born.

In other words, I am not an insane bully.

The author spends a lot of time hand-wringing over the rights violations of the past. Yes, slavery of the forcibly imported Africans (or anyone), and the genocide of the aboriginal North American people (or anyone) were wrong. Guess what- no one living today participated in either of those things.

Statist author is upset that "For most American libertarians, if the government taxes rich white Americans, it is theft, but if rich white Americans stole African American labor, time, energy, and talent, it happened a long time ago and accounts should be cleared."

"Taxation" of anyone ever, in any amount, is theft and is wrong. Period.

Stealing labor (which is exactly what "taxation" does, too) from anyone, by any individual, under any pretext, by any name is always wrong. But if you can't make it right since all the thieves and their victims are dead and have been for many years, you really should "clear" the "accounts".

What would the statist suggest instead? Punish people for things they didn't do?

If the author's grandfather murdered someone before he ever had children, and got away with it, should we put Statist Blogger on death row today for the grandfather's violation? I'll assume here that the grandfather's survival and subsequent reproduction "enriched" the author's life in some way- either through existence, property which wouldn't have otherwise been inherited, or just from a family not broken by the imprisonment or execution of a father/grandfather.

And, even in the case of "taxation" being extorted from people (both rich and poor, by the way) in the past - it's the past. There is no possibility of really repairing past damage this long after it occurred. Get over it- and don't do it again.

The past is gone. You and I will never know the whole story (or even more than a few highlights which may or may not even be accurate)- and "minor" details can make a huge difference.

Yes, there is a time when the slate has to be wiped clean and a "from this point forward, never again" path needs to be followed.

My brain hurts from exposure to this level of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I wonder if the author still believes what was written in that post.



  1. I believe that blaming individuals for the actions of their ancestors is not only an act of bigotry but the most damaging consequence of collectivism.

    1. Exactly. It is a very specific bigotry (hating descendants of one specific person).

      Quothe comic Brett Butler: "I hate bigots so much I am one."

    2. It's a tactic and a very deliberate one. It's designed to derail logical debate by moving it into emotional territory. Suddenly everything's polarised, everything's about sides rather than principles (which is all "identity politics" means) and nobody's thinking with their brain any more.

      Never, EVER make the mistake of thinking that these people are stupid. There is malice behind this. They're deliberately arguing in bad faith and simultaneously smearing the opposition.

      Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is the playbook they live by. You can get it on Amazon. I'm not sure I'd recommend it exactly - it's fairly sickening and you're lining the enemy's pocket when you buy a copy - but it's useful to understand the tactics they use.

      There are books on countering Alinsky tactics though. I haven't read them so can't comment on their quality, but at least you wouldn't succouring the enemy by buying one.

    3. RogerC- I have a copy of that I downloaded free for my Kindle. Yeah, it's pretty disgusting.

  2. Classic, and they teach that stuff to kids right from the get-go...and it never ends.

    Here's what gets me about numbskulls like that. Okay, so he understands nothing about production or wealth, and believes that the imaginary "pie" should be cut up equally. Alright, it's stupid but that's what he believes. Worse, he believes that people should act as thugs to get it done---immoral beyond belief maybe, but that's what he concludes.

    That's all insane enough, but they're still a person's conclusions. So be it. What irks me even more (if that's possible) is that you just know in a thousand years, the punk wouldn't do the dirty work himself. To me THAT'S the unfathomable part---to actually believe such craziness but NOT be willing to carry it out. It's such a complete denial of his own existence, that I can't grasp it. It's like saying, "I want to eat that meal" and then not putting the food into your mouth.

    The inconsistencies and irrationality are maddening enough, but it's the inability to live and even do THAT, that I find completely incomprehensible. It's like the negation of Descartes---"I think, therefore I am not."

    1. He won't do it himself because he understands that some unknown non-zero percentage of people will defend themselves from such violations. It doesn't make for a long career.

    2. Sure---fear, the motivator of our times. But notice too that he'd undoubtedly say that NOBODY should do it themselves, even if they didn't have that fear. Too "uncivilized," of course.

      I'm tellin' ya, it's the complete denial of the self...of its very existence. If the guy had a drop of internally consistent logic, he wouldn't even be able to eat. But of course, consistent logic carries no import with that type. That's why they can not only eat, but eat the food earned by others.