the IDIOT

if you spend much time arguing with statists, you’ll often see two term-bombs of illogic dropped on your contention that liberty is superior. as i now note regularly, the correct primary answer to any such argument is to demand that statists show you how and why they have the right to own and control in any degree the lives of peaceful others. this raises another illogic bomb of statists (especially the moonbat type); sniffing their noses in the air, they proclaim to one another — and you, when you can get them to stick in an argument for more than 3 seconds — that “libertarians are selfish”. rather than engage them in the correct and lengthy refutation of this inane and normally fallacious ad hominem tool of evasion, adopt the unfortunate tactical habit of only using “i” and “me” when discussing what you can do to directly help others, and “you” and “peaceful others” or “him” when discussing the statist wannabe criminal and those against which he has no right to initiate force.

trust me, these stupid fucks consider any argument re government won if they hear you discussing at any significant length how statism affects you personally. to them you are but a cog in the wheel of “the greater good” for “society” (AKA everyone but you), and when you say your wealth should be yours to administer, in their “minds” that wealth is immediately spent solely on SUVs, boats, and other cool, “selfish” gizmos, or to hire armed guards to exploit the proletariat (not coincidentally, the very thing they advocate and support, though they’re usually blind to that reality). far as they’re concerned, there is no charity except that which flows from them and their wishes that your wealth be stolen for their supposedly good ends.

um… who’s “selfish” again?

yes, all argument’s killed immediately by concentrating on their nonexistent right to dominate others, which of course sometimes becomes achingly plain even to moonbats when reduced to the individual level (as in bastiat’s The Law). however, since voluntarists, sadly, have normally spent years researching and practicing utilitarian arguments, it can be fun to shove the utilitarian side up their gazoos once you’ve done the rights thing. it’s dangerous stuff, which must always give way to rights. but if you hit those waters, bear in mind the favored tactic of these creeps — pretending that liberty has been tried repeatedly and failed. to that end, nothing makes their false task easier than the bright stars of the statist gimmick closet: “deregulate” and “privatize”.

underlying all utilitarian argument from statists is the insane, unstated premise that government is perfection. almost every statist immediately attempts to show imperfection in liberty, using more illogic bombs from the gimmick arsenal such as “market failure” and “imperfect knowledge”. don’t let even the tar for that road be applied. of course liberty leads to imperfect results. there is no perfection in human interaction, so the only utilitarian question is how imperfect a thing is.

“deregulation” has long been the darling of pro-monopolist statists. shut that fucker down by requiring that if it’s to be used to describe a free market, it must mean the total elimination of regulation — not only in the specific field, but in others which might reasonably affect it. for example, the famous example of “deregulation” in the california energy “market” was simply re-regulation, composed in a way that guaranteed, by law, the failures which were then blamed on liberty and “unbridled” [whatever]. pure horse shit.

recently, “privatization” has been flung by the statist horde even more than “deregulation”. to the statist, if government thugs farm out some of their thuggery, whatever disaster thus brewed has been privatized. you gotta love the “logic” here, in that pretty much every government “program” is a disaster, but they give government a pass if any of those evil “capitalists” are involved. most of the time statists speak of privatization, the “capitalists” are genuinely evil, but that is simply because rather than being private and voluntary, they are government contractors. shut down all argument using “privatize” incorrectly by insisting that nothing in which government chooses, controls, or is otherwise in bed with a supposedly private company gets that blame gimmick “privatized”. sometimes even liberty advocates forget that private businesses are often just as fucked as government (even without government interference). the notable difference is that other businesses, if they are truly private, may be shut down peacefully simply by customer withdrawal. a private business must earn its pay every day, not sit with mouth open accepting government selected handouts of stolen wealth. any business not selected by, nor at the regular mercy of, non-government customers, is not private.

okay, i’m done with that. but isn’t it interesting the straining and groaning state lovers will employ to focus on everything but the dominant, glaring evil in the room? still baffles me, though i have a workable theory or two.

Tags: "privatize", ad hominem, california, crime gang failure, fallacy, frédéric bastiat, utilitarianism

Posted 20070618 08:08 under coercionists, government dumb. Follow responses through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are closed.