Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Appeal of statism understandable

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 18, 2015)

Since it’s a good idea to try to understand the opposition, I try to understand non-libertarians.

I’m not speaking of those who are not part of the Libertarian Party (neither am I), but those who reject the ideas that it is wrong to use violence against those who are neither being violent nor violating property, and that it is wrong to violate property.

Ignore for now the bad guys who rob and attack. They are what they are. Instead, focus with me on those who want to be decent people, but reject the foundation which makes decency possible. Most of these substitute government for principle.

I understand the appeal of statism- the belief that all people should be governed by other people- which is separate from the belief that people should control (govern) their own behavior.

There are bad people out there. Some people want to feel safe from them, and think governments, laws, and enforcers can create safety. They believe the benefits of governing outweigh the risks, and that freelance bad guys are a greater risk than are people to whom power is given- people drawn from the same population known to contain bad guys. They pretend bad guys won't be attracted to a position of power where they can do the bad things they desire, but with "authority" to give their behaviors a veil of legitimacy. Besides, Aunt Tilly feels safer this way.

I understand, but think they are mistaken and Utopian.

I also understand the attraction of nationalism. It's nice to feel a sense of belonging to a group; something bigger than oneself. Instead of actually accomplishing things personally, the nationalist can say "We beat the Commies!" and feel pride in something he had no part in. Or even something he unwittingly monkey-wrenched, but which happened in spite of his "help".

Plus, there is always the comfort of familiar rituals and symbols. Humans crave rituals and create them around the most mundane things. They come to value the rituals more than that which the ritual originally honored. Chants are recited on cue, along with soundbites with which they have been trained to respond when nationalist beliefs are challenged.

And symbols? People love them. They design flags, seals, buildings, offices, titles, and whatever else they can dream up to worship- then incorporate those symbols into the rituals.

So, yes, I understand, but I don't agree. It would all be funny if it hadn't killed around 200 million non-combatants in the 20th Century alone.



  1. Understandable, yes. Excusable, maybe. Defense still applies.

  2. MamaLiberty sent this comment to me in an email:

    Excellent, Kent!

    "...but with “authority” to give their behaviors a veil of legitimacy."

    This is the core. People have been conditioned for many thousands of
    years to believe that some people have legitimate "authority" to control
    their lives and property. Yet the natural autonomous authority of each
    individual continues to come through anyway. The revolutions, civil wars
    and so forth are a wild mix of statism and people seeking autonomy, of
    course, but individualism seems to be gaining even there.

    Gradually, the number of people willing to assume that authority over
    themselvse is growing.

    I don't think mankind will ever be 100% self owners, but eventually the
    trend could place us in a position where we would no longer be the easy
    prey of the controllers. They can have their chiefs and presidents, far
    as I'm concerned, just as long as they leave self governors alone.

    We may have to move to Mars to achieve that last, of course. But I'm all
    for it!


    Does the Bible teach that men need to repent of original sin? No, it does not. The Bible does not even mention original sin. Original sin was invented by men. The promoters of the doctrine of original sin claim that Adam sinned and therefore all men are born guilty of sin because they inherited it from Adam. They teach that all men are born with the sin nature of Adam. The question remains how would it be possible to repent of the sin Adam committed? [ NOTE:Adam was not even the original sinner. Eve was the original sinner. 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.(NKJV) Also see: Genesis 3:13]

    Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NKJV)

    The apostle Peter was not telling those on the Day of Pentecost to repent of their original sin that they inherited from Adam. How can men repent of the sins of others?

    Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned---(NKJV)

    Death spread to all men, BECAUSE ALL SINNED. Men can repent of the sins they themselves commit, but they cannot repent of the sin Adam committed, nor are they guilty of Adam's sin.

    Luke 13:1-3.....3 "I tell you no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.(NKJV)

    Was Jesus telling them unless they repented of the sin Adam committed they would perish? Of course not, sinners are sinners because they sin, not because someone else has sinned.

    The teachers of the doctrine of original sin believe that in order to be forgiven of Adam's sin and have Adam's sin nature washed away, unbelieving babies and adults must be baptized in water to wash away the guilt of Adam's sin. Where is the Scripture that teaches that doctrine?

    2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.(NKJV)

    Is the Lord waiting for men to repent from the guilt of Adam's sin. Of course not. Men need to repent of their unbelief, and commit to turn from sin and turn toward God.

    There are no Scriptures that mentions "ORIGINAL SIN".

    There is no Scripture that states unbelieving babies should be baptized in order to wash away the guilt of Adam's sin.

    There is not one verse of Scripture that states that sin can be inherited from, Adam, Eve, nor anyone else.

    A question that goes unanswered. If original sin in inherited, then how can an infant inherit sin from Christian parents who have been washed by the blood of Jesus the Christ?

    The doctrine of original sin is a man-made doctrine.

    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com