How To Argue For Statism v2.0

Here's the thing you have to understand about rationalist Libertarians: we want statists to come up with decent arguments against Libertarianism or for the state! We want to engage in an intelligent debate where we're challenged and made to question any conclusions we've drawn. Indeed, it's the fact that we did just this in the past that made us Libertarians to begin with. It's not about defending what we want to believe; it's about making sure our beliefs match reality as closely as possible.

But it's really difficult to argue with statists as long as they keep pulling the same crap that creationists and other peddlers of bogosity do, and I've covered numerous examples of this on my channel.

So awhile back, TerraDraca came up with his YouTube video, How to Argue for Statism, and his corresponding journal entry, and TravisRetriever expanded on this idea in his deviantArt journal. I thought this was such a good idea that it needs to be spread around as much as possible, so I've expanded on it as well and I've made this video for statists everywhere:



If you want to prove that you're right and we're wrong, here are some things you need to do, and things you need to avoid doing.

1. Know your definitions!

Nothing is more infuriating than dealing with someone who just doesn't understand the definitions of the words he's using. You know how people feel when creationists misuse the word "theory"? Well, that's how libertarians feel when people misuse words like "capitalism."

And really, there's no excuse for it! I mean, even Dictionary.com will tell you that anarchy means "without rulers," not "without rules." Any Libertarian will confirm that the central tenet of all forms of political libertarianism is the absolute rejection of the initiation of force. And before you go saying that libertarian originally meant "socialist" or "communist," why don't you look at what the Online Etymology Dictionary says about it?

These definitions are but mere keystrokes away, so there is NO excuse for using terms incorrectly.

And by the way, that goes for YOUR terms, too! I've had people defend socialism without knowing what it actually means, and it's painful. It's absolutely painful. And sometimes, when you point out it is socialism, they're all like, "WAAAH! The bad man called me a socialist!" But if you're in favor of government health care, you ARE a socialist, at least on the health care issue. If you're in favor of a central bank with a fiat currency, that's a socialist policy! It's not an insult to say something is "socialist," and if you think it is, it's probably time to rethink your position. We point out that it's socialism because that's what it is. And if you think that's a good policy, then what you need to do is man up and defend socialism! It's okay! We'll let you do that!

2. Spare us the fear mongering.

Screaming that the sky will fall if we don't keep feeding the state machine is not an argument, it is a threat—I don't care how many tears of fake compassion you pretend to have over it. It's no different than saying I should believe in God because I'll burn in hell if I don't. It does not convince me. It does not move me towards your position in the slightest. In fact, it actually moves me away from it, because it suggests that you're trying to browbeat, or even bully me into it. And it implies you either don't know how to argue or you know you have no valid points to make. You cannot substitute a threat for evidence. You can point a gun at me and make me say "I'm Twilight Sparkle!" but that won't make it so.

Now, if you want to say that certain specific bad things will happen if certain specific statist policies are repealed, or certain libertarian policies are implemented, that's fine—but you'd better be prepared to defend it!

3. Stop with the special pleading already.

We've made this very clear, but people still seem to think they can get away with it. If you claim a moral rule, don't exempt the state from it! I don't care if they're on "your team" or not. Go look up the results of the Nuremberg trials to see why "I was just following orders" was shot down as a valid defense by the very government you defend.

If you say you are against exploitation, don't turn around and say that running up the debt for the next generation to pay is totally cool with you. Don't say murder is wrong and then try to make excuses for wars and drone strikes. Don't make arguments for taxation that you would never accept from anyone other than the state. If you do, you are a chump and a hypocrite, and nobody who matters listens to hypocrites.

And for that matter, don't rail against how monopolies are bad, and then turn around and defend the state having a monopoly in all sorts of things, from drug testing to roads to emergency services. You'll just make yourself look like an idiot and we won't take what you say at all seriously.

Politicians are not gods, they are not angels, they are not saints, they're generally not even very good human beings. There isn't anything they can do that we can't work together to achieve peacefully, without the use of force. And speaking of which:

4. Stop trying to pretend the state isn't force.

The state is the initiation of force. Period. This is not up for debate. Every time you argue something should be law/statute/ordinance/regulation or whatever, you are advocating violence against anyone who does not agree.

"No I'm not!" I hear you cry. "I'm just trying to help people!"

Okay, what happens if someone doesn't think it's a good cause or would rather help some other way? What is the state going to do? Ask them nicely?

No! They will be sent papers in the mail. If they ignore them, they'll be called to court. If they refuse to go, the police will come. If they refuse to go with them, they will be forced to go. And if they attempt to resist, BANG! And for what? Because they didn't want to spend their money in a way you thought was noble? Explain to me how that justifies assault, kidnapping, rape, and murder.

Every. Single. Law. will ultimately result in your murder if you continue to resist for long enough. The only way to stop this is either for you to submit in some way, in which case you're a victim of oppression, or the state gives up, in which case the entire law is ineffectual.

Oh, there are other ways to stop it, like nullification, but you statists are almost universally against that!

If I gave you a gun, would you go to someone's house and demand money to fund your cause, fully intent on shooting them if they refuse? No? Then you need to explain to me why you would, in good conscience, have the state do it on your behalf. How is that better?

You advocate the use of force—deadly force, if "necessary"—against those who disagree with you. Grow a pair and justify it! Stop trying to dance around the issue. The very fact that you feel the need to avoid it reeks of a guilty conscience and Stockholm Syndrome.

5. Don't use government policy as a means of justifying government policy.

This is just a circular argument and gets you nowhere. Here are some examples:

The EPA mandates its testing of water purity. Since they have monopoly power, it means that anyone testing the purity of water in the private sector gets crowded out, if not restricted outright. It's circular reasoning to point to that and say we rely on government for water purity testing, as if it somehow proves the private sector couldn't do it.

Immigration puts a strain on the welfare state. Even if this is true (and the evidence is really iffy at best; if anything, immigrants—both legal and illegal—are less likely to go on government assistance once other factors are controlled for), this is an argument against the welfare state, not against immigration.

Terrorists attack us because they hate us. But the reason they hate us (according to the US government's own intelligence experts) is because our military is over on their land attacking them. So attacking them in retaliation is just going to result in more hatred and more terrorism.

We need welfare because people don't donate enough money to charity. But how much money would they donate if they weren't taxed to pay for the welfare state, an international offense, and tons of pork-barrel boondoggles?

6. Stop shifting the Burden of Proof.

This one is simple. Libertarians and anarchists are not making the positive claim. You are. That places the Burden of Proof on you. So asking us "Well, how is your system any better?" is just shifting the Burden of Proof and you can't prove a negative anyway. It's no different than a theist demanding an atheist present his proof that God doesn't exist. The Burden of Proof is on you to show the how the use of force by the state is justified, just like it's on the theist to prove the existence of their god. As Hawkeye once said, why should I have to disprove anything you never bothered to prove?

And just so we're clear, being the status quo is not the same as being proven. You could argue for any number of atrocities—from slavery, the holocaust, Stalin's Purges, the Great Leap Forward, child prostitution, murder of homosexuals, and so on—using that "logic." It's bogus when Christians use that argument, and it's equally bogus when statists use it. Knock it off!

And by the way, please don't come back with the tired old desperate tactic, "But we can prove the state exists!" No one is questioning the existence of the state! What we are questioning is the justifications for its use of force, and the claims that it and only it can solve certain problems. The Burden of Proof is on you to show that. When you resort to crap like this, it only shows you to be a dishonest person and we aren't going to want to deal with you any longer.

7. Ditch the "Social Contract."

And keeping #1 in mind, what I mean is the idea that all this government force is justified because we all agreed to it somehow. The only way someone could possibly think the social contract is valid is if they already agreed to government force and used it as a rationalization. But think about it: what if a private entity had a contract like this and tried to litigate in court? Just imagine it:

"But your honor, he agreed to the agreement!"

"How?"

"He was born into it!"

"Oh, come on! We don't have slavery in this country! Haven't you read the 13th Amendment?"

"Okay, yeah, but his parents agreed to it!"

"Parents can't enter into a contract for a minor, you know that. Your contract would be with the parents, but the minor can cancel it at any time, even after reaching the age of majority."

"But he didn't! He turned 18 and didn't cancel it!"

"Didn't you hear what I just said? You don't have a valid contract with the parents to begin with! And even if you did, it does not in any way bind the child to agreeing to it!"

"But he didn't actually say he disagreed with it until now!"

"Come on! That's tacit consent, and no court in the civilized world upholds that."

"He agreed to it because he didn't move somewhere else!"

"I'm this close to jailing you for contempt of court! Because he didn't move somewhere else??? The only way inaction can be considered agreeing to a contract is through estoppel, and you know that doesn't apply here!"

"I think it does! Because we fed him and he took the food!"

"So, you're saying that a slave agrees to be enslaved when he accepts a meal from his master? Give me a break! Two days in jail for contempt of court! Bailiff, take him away!"

It doesn't work! And if you remember #3, you can't have different rules for your government than there are for the rest of us. If it's wrong for any of us to do it, it's wrong for government to do it. Period.

Not to mention the fact that no one can show you this contract when you ask for it. You have to at least be able to look at a contract and see what the terms are before you can be said to have agreed with it!

Also, a contract requires a meeting of the minds. But how does this imaginary "Social Contract" work? You're one side, the government is the other side. The government can throw you in jail if you don't follow the contract, but what about when the government doesn't follow it? Do the cops get thrown in jail when they don't protect you? Or even when they bust down your door on a mistaken drug raid and shoot your dog? No! Courts have ruled in cases such as Warren v. DC that the police are under no obligation to provide you with police services when you call them. Cops all over the country are arresting people for videotaping them in the line of duty, even though there's not a single law against that anywhere, and none of them have been punished or even successfully sued for it. Not only that, cops were caught on video beating a mentally-disabled homeless guy to death and they still got away with it!

And when people like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden make the people aware of the atrocities their government has committed? Even the government with the Constitution, the government of the land of the free and the home of the brave, calls them "traitors" and puts them in prison or leaves them in exile in another country, while absolutely nothing at all happens to the government agents who committed these atrocities or spied on Americans in abeyance of the 4th Amendment.

Also, let's not forget #4: government forces you to adhere to this "contract." If that ever happens with a real contract, it's called "duress," and the whole agreement is void.

And government claims to be able to change the terms of this contract at any time, for any reason, without your consent. No contract which operates this way is valid.

And what happens where there is a conflict? Who makes the decision as to who's in the right and who should be punished? That's right: the government!

So, government gets to claim that the contract exists, not show you what it says, change the terms as they go along, can punish you for it at any time, aren't accountable for holding up their end of the bargain, and also decides which side is right and wrong whenever there's a conflict! Great scam, if you can get in on it. Otherwise, it kinda sucks.

8. Stop calling us the hypocrites.

We've already shown the hypocrisy of statism with #3, so you need to stop doing that if you want to convince us. By the same token, stop calling us hypocrites just because we do things like, drive on the roads. As long as government has a monopoly over the roads or whatever it is you're talking about, as long as they get to use force to make people comply with their policies, it cannot be said to be in any way our choice.

And it's especially egregious when the statist starts harping on about "exploitation" in the free market. A worker is exploited even when there are other businesses he could be working for. Consumers are exploited even when there are similar products on the shelf from other companies. Your so-called "monopolies" aren't even real monopolies; Standard Oil only got more than 65% of the market for a few years, and never got 100%. You could always get a computer that didn't have a single byte of Microsoft software on it. Really, the only time we see monopolies is when the state gets involved, such as local cable or power companies.

Sorry, but you don't get to claim you're exploited because you bought one of several options of products, or took one of several jobs you had the option to take, or even the option of not working for anyone and starting your own business, and then turn around and say that the Libertarian is being hypocritical for using the roads because government declared eminent domain over all common-law rights-of-way. That is the exploitation! That is when we don't have the choice!

9. Always consider the possibility that you're wrong.

In the last episode of the second series of COSMOS, Neil deGrasse Tyson said:

It's okay not to know all the answers. It's better to admit our ignorance than to believe answers that might be wrong. Pretending to know everything closes the door to finding out what's really there.

Understand, this is exactly what we see the government doing: every single time, no matter what the problem is, government and the statists who defend it claim to have the answer, whether the problem is medical, economic, industrial, environmental, or international; whether it's building the roads, fighting fires, drilling for oil, running a small business, or even just raising your children, government presumes to know what's best—to the point where it will send men with guns after you if you disagree and try to do your own thing.

Any time someone says the government might be wrong, they're met with, "But who will build the roads?" "Why do you hate the poor?" "You're anti-American!" "So I guess you'd be fine with people just letting your house burn down!" and so on. These are not defenses of the state; they are the assertions that the state—and you—are 100% correct and any disagreement must be wrong simply because it is a disagreement. The state gets defended just as fervently—and just as fallaciously—as any religion.

Admitting you could be wrong does not weaken your position. In fact, believe it or not, it's quite the opposite. I know, it sucks to think of the possibility that you were wrong for so long, when you have so much time and emotion and money invested in it. And if you are proven wrong, it's embarrassing...for a few minutes. But I ask you, what is worse: a few minutes' embarrassment, or wasting your whole life on a lie? You only have but one life, after all.

10. Stop getting mad at us.

We weren't the ones who lied to you about political policies. We weren't the Democrats in power who lied about being anti-war and pro-homosexual, and then started even more wars with drone strikes and left all the LGBTs out to dry. We weren't the Republicans in power who claimed to be pro-free market and pro-privatization and then expanded medicare and grew government even faster than the Democrats.

Don't get mad at us when we point out that the Republicans lied about being small-government in 2010 just as they lied about it in 1994.

Don't get mad at us when we point out that the Democrats lied about being anti-war to get Obama elected. Or when we point out that Korea was Truman's war and Vietnam was Johnson's war.

Don't get mad at us when we point out that the Republicans were in power from 2001 to 2006, with majorities in the House and Senate, full control of the White House, and a majority in the Supreme Court, and it was still the same business as usual that left us with higher taxes, less freedom, a worse-off economy, and more debt.

Don't get mad at us when we point out that it was Clinton who signed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Obama fought its repeal in the courts tooth and nail.

Accept that you were lied to by people who wanted to use you, and learn from it. But you getting mad at us for pointing out you were tricked and conned and how your Holy Grail is made of fool's gold? Rank cowardice.

So, statists, the ball's in your court now. It's time for you to step up and meet your Burden of Proof. No Chicken Little scaremongering, no Lifeboat Scenarios, no "Who will build the roads?", no making ridiculous demands of us that you could never meet yourself. Just explain how statism can work. Explain how the initiation of force is justified to implement your pet policy.

And I'm planning some future videos in this series to challenge you on specific subjects, to get you to try and criticize libertarianism in a rational way, using the tools of skepticism, the way I've been criticizing statist policies for years. Yeah, no doubt about it, statists: your free ride is over. Time to step up.

We're waiting. We're waiting right here. And we have as much time as it takes.

Well?