Sunday, May 05, 2019

The Book vs the bumper sticker

Often I'll answer someone's question on an issue with a highly detailed explanation. I'll go into details, include links, and do the best I can to make sure what I'm saying is complete. You can see some of these efforts preserved in this blog.

Statists will usually then complain that they didn't want a book, just a simple answer.

Other times I'll pare it down to the simplest answer I can come up with, free of links or details they didn't ask for. Thinking that if they have a further question about some specific point, I can expand on that later. If they are interested.

The statists usually then complain that if I'm just going to reply with "a bumper sticker" they're done with me.

I finally came to understand this is a trap. They don't want to get it, so they'll use whatever excuse is most convenient to avoid facing the harsh truth. It wouldn't have mattered how I responded. Not really.

This is why it's more productive to write for The Remnant.

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.


  1. Spot-on, Kent, in your conclusion that if someone isn't open to reason, it's a waste of time to reason with him. Always, such a man will find an excuse to reject what we say. There's no more profit in that than to reason with a stone.

    However in my view it's a mistake to leap from there to the "Remnant" theory. Its main false premise is that a state of refusal to reason is permanent.

    That cannot be true. The proof is that you and I are here. Once, we were archists (okay, archators for those who love syllables.) Now, we are not. We changed. If we can change, so can anyone else. There comes a point (at least one) for everyone, when they are willing to listen. The trick is, to catch them at that point.

    The method suggested in TOLFA is to invite friends to consider ideas of liberty. The one who says Yes is then steered to or handed a CD bearing a copy of the academy, and get to work. The vast majority who say No are however not pursued further except with "May I ask you again in a year's time?" or some such.

    One a year is ample, for 2 to the power of 28 equals the whole adult US population.

    1. Focusing on the Remnant doesn't mean you are preventing the others from hearing the truth, it just means you aren't surprised when they don't want to hear it.

      I've had some luck with tolfa. I've also had a few students vanish into thin air not long after getting into it. I only hope those either didn't need my mentoring anymore, or a seed was planted that will eventually grow.

  2. I am beginning to think that Libertarians are as stupid as statists, maybe even more so.

    What is said, new ideas, a better way, etc all irrelevant bullshit until the masses are dead and thus unable to produce systematic violence. Until that happens, nothing means anything.

    Want liberty? ...then you're going to have to fight for it, using the most merciless, relentless and deadly force you can muster.

    Don't want to be forceful? ...then lock boots and STFU.

    1. I have no problem with being forceful. I just won't initiate force.

    2. Is the use of force justified in defense of rights? Does that include defense against violence that is not force? theft, property and privacy violations and abuses, etc., etc., ..

      If you're rightful, you're rightful. And anyone or thing that encroaches upon that is wrong. If you have to use force to make it stop to correct or rectify it, how is it not rightful, just and appropriate?

    3. We've had this discussion before.

      Yes, it is justified if a specific person is archating right now, or making a credible threat to archate. Using force may be suicidal, but it is rightful under those circumstances. Using force against (killing?) someone because they have the wrong beliefs isn't rightful, even if they excuse what others do to you because of their wrong beliefs.