Government Crimes Are Not Illegal And Other Myths

 

“You need to stop using incorrect words or else nobody but extremists and radicals will listen to you. “

 

I have no desire to honey my words with feel good euphemisms so as to keep intact other people’s illusions. I will always call things by their proper names, as I believe that is the supreme honesty I would like afforded to me. If I see theft, fraud, assault, rape, or murder done by a common man I will call it as such. If I see the very same actions done by men/women in special clothes, wearing special badges, and assuming to be “government” authority I will call it by the same name. According to “government” speak this would translate to being taxation, Quantitative Easing, the Mandrake Mechanism, currency creation, arrest, imprisonment, NDAA, Patriot Act, The War on Drugs, The War on Terror, drone bombings, foreign occupations, assassinations of foreign dictators etc. In the world of true morality there are no exceptions. “Government” will always attempt to diffuse responsibility for its sundry crimes through its complex bureaucracy. I hold all accountable who participate or support such a vile institution.

 

“If you say that government is guilty of crimes but the acts they are performing are not against the law, then you are just lying.”

 

Please do not conflate legality with morality. They are quite diametrically opposed. If “government” tomorrow legalizes slavery once again would you decide to own slaves? If “government” tomorrow legalizes murder would you start murdering people? If “government” tomorrow legalizes rape would go out on a raping rampage? I sincerely hope not, for if you do you will necessarily incur the wrath and retribution of your fellow man. I sincerely hope you have the moral compass to restrain your own actions regardless of what our angelic “government” would tell us is legal or illegal. Legality means absolutely nothing! The only thing that matters is what your conscience tells you is right. If you were raised with morals and principles then you will not have to look to any “government” to tell you whether something is right or wrong. You will make this determination for yourself.

 

“Maybe you advocate a society where taxation and war are illegal (you don’t; you advocate a society where neither of these things exist, so your use of law related terms like murder wouldn’t even be applicable in your society because there are no laws forbidding it because there are no laws), but in our society they aren’t. “

 

You really must give up use of the words “legal or illegal”. They imply the existence of an entity known as “government” that enforces man-made law and therefore is above the law of morality. Legality means absolutely nothing! When you give a small group of people near unlimited power to enforce the laws, is it any surprise that they will consolidate power and construct the laws to benefit them and their friends? This should come as no surprise.

 

I not only advocate a society in which taxation and war are immoral, they are immoral today! Perhaps in a stateless society taxation might exist but it would be called by its proper name, extortion or tribute to the local mafia. Are you saying “government” is responsible for rendering murder immoral and punishable? This is not a new idea; rather it’s an ancient one. “Government” did not invent the concept of murder.

 

You are here committing the black and white fallacy or false dilemma. “If government does not prohibit murder, then everyone will be murdering everyone else! Chaos and mayhem!” I’m sorry but this is not reflective of reality. Again man-made laws do not prevent anything. People have and will always do things regardless of man-made law. When you go to the mall you are in contact with many people who, if they had the inclination, could have injured, assaulted, or murdered you if they so chose to. The fact that most of the time we can walk in public and be safe is because most people just don’t care to do such things to other people. Most people just want to live their own lives, go to work, raise their children etc. Of course there are exceptions but people are for the most part indifferent to other people. Saying that without laws prohibiting murder, people will go on a murder spree is to overlook this very important notion. Anarchy affects our lives much more than “government” does even in this Statist infested day and age.

 

“The distinction here is big, because I and many others understand the need for and are OK with taxes and military and police existing, but not theft by private individuals or random acts of personal violence.”

 

Yes and at one point many people thought it was ok to own people in the form of chain slavery, murder Jews in gas chambers, and exterminate Native Americans due to where they happened to live. Doing things because other people do them is scarcely a philosophical reason to do something. Incidentally you are here also committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy AKA bandwagon logical fallacy AKA appeal to democracy. When one thinks the same as the majority one is not doing much thinking at all.

 

You have to recognize the schizophrenic view you are espousing here. If theft and violence done by private individuals is immoral, then donning a special costume, badge, or hat does not change anything whatsoever. To believe this is so is to believe that any crime that “government” does can be nullified and made acceptable simply by passing another ridiculous law declaring it to be so.

 

1) Can I rob, defraud, assault, rape, or murder my neighbor?

2) Can a small group rob, defraud, assault, rape, or murder my neighbor?

3) Can a large group rob, defraud, assault, rape, or murder my neighbor?

4) If we do not have that right can we delegate that right to “government” to rob, defraud, assault, rape, or murder my neighbor on our behalf?

 

At no point in this exercise have the laws of morality changed.

 

“I realize the reason for lying with the terms you are using is with a purpose: a little stretching of the truth helps gets your point across and gets people incited and angry about government.  But, the only people you will succeed in having this effect is with the disenfranchised or unenlightened.  With others, you will only find contempt, pity, or disgust.  Or a combination thereof.”

 

I do not lie. I tell things as they are. The truth is extreme; to make it moderate it is to lie. I do not need to appeal to people’s emotional centers to get my point across. Indeed I try very hard to state my case with the utmost in cold logic without using inflammatory language. I leave that to the politicians.

 

That is why my website is called “Peaceful Anarchism”. I do not desire a violent revolution, but rather one of ideas and words. Contempt, pity, and disgust are not logical arguments. They have no effect on me. When such people are able to muster a logical argument, I’m all ears.

 

“If government is truly an abhorrent evil that is so terrible that it must eventually be abolished, then it should be very easy to make your arguments while staying within the actual real definitions of the words you use.”

 

Well technically “government” is not the abhorrent evil since it fundamentally is people with guns robbing peaceful people of the fruits of their labor. Therefore my focus is always to dispel the belief in the myth of authority. When some people claim special rights by means of “government” to commit atrocities with impunity then I have enormous reservation about that and will incessantly seek to expose it. You may not agree with my chosen words but I do not lie.

 

“On the other hand, if you take the sentence, “Do you believe the President of the United States is a mass murderer?” and change it to, “Do you believe the President of the United States has made legal decisions that have resulted in the deaths of others?”

 

If I hire a hit man to murder someone, am I responsible for murder? Of course! In the chain of command all are held responsible because we all have a mind and we are all capable of making choices that influence our actions at every step of the way. To say otherwise is to strip people of their moral responsibility. That is a heinous act that I would never do! We always have a choice! Yes that even applies to our mighty President of the US! He is just as guilty of murder as the obedient soldier who guns down innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. To deny this is to reduce people to mindless machines.

 

Again legality is something I do not recognize at any level. I don’t care if something is legal or illegal. If it is right I will do it. If it is wrong I will not do it. My morality is not dictated by what is legal. Legality is an artificial paradigm constructed by the sociopaths in power to keep their subjects in line.

 

“All land is privately owned in your society, so let’s say there is a guy that lives in property A, and on his borders are private properties B C and D.  For some reason, the guy living in property A is disliked (maybe he’s black, or is known for sleeping with other people’s wives, or is a suspected child molester, who knows), and the guys living in B C and D decide that if he trespasses in their property they and going to report him to a dispute resolving agency, or shoot him, or whatever they are able to do in compensation for trespassing.   Is this a problem that the guy living in A is basically isolated from the rest of the world if he doesn’t want to risk punitive measures?”

 

I have no doubt that you are a very creative man, capable of devising many complex hypothetical scenarios in which the rights of some will be violated and others will overtake the world by having bought out all the businesses and by acquiring all the guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons in existence. However this by no means constitutes a logical argument and is merely an exercise in imagination. I hope you don’t confuse one with the other. You seem to delight in constantly placing the burden of proof on me with all these fantastical hypothetical situations. However you must realize that, in actuality, the burden of proof lies on you. It is your bloody Statist society that has by far produced the most genocide, wars, mass murder, democide, wholesale extermination, injustice, violence, and suffering the world has ever seen. It is the crimes against humanity that your bloody Statist society must seek to justify and rationalize away. The horrific atrocities attributed to Statism are wholly undeniable whereas that of Anarchy is exclusively conjectural.

 

Nevertheless I will indulge you once again. Here you are once again committing the appeal to pity logical fallacy. In constructing this scenario you are attempting to provoke an emotional response in me for the plight of the man living in property A. I don’t see a logical argument here. This is inconsequential and immaterial to our discussion.

 

I have never claimed that a Stateless society is a Utopia for the very reason that humans are imperfect beings. There is no perfect society, however we can expect a society where crimes are punished equally regardless of one’s clothing, badge, or hat. That much we can expect and that is what I ceaselessly strive towards.