Top 10 Statist Fallacies

1

Get it straight, statists: destruction is destruction. Production is production. Two plus two does not equal five.

By Winter Trabex @ Art of Not Being Governed

In order to understand the word statist, it must be taken apart. The word has two roots: “state” and “ist.” The suffix “ist” attached to any word confers a system of belief upon whatever word it is attached to. In this case, a statist is someone who believes the existence of the state is not only necessary, not only beneficial, but one that is worthy of dedicating one’s life work to.

rabbit season

Unfortunately, in their mad rush for to reinforce their own personal preferences, statists make a large number of intellectual mistakes, most of which are the result of disregarding facts. Here then, are the top 10 statist fallacies I have observed in my life.

(Please note: if any of these make you unreasonably angry, look at yourself before you point the finger at someone else)

Number 10: Insults Are Good Rebuttals!

When bogged down with irrefutable facts, Socratic logic, or sound reasoning, statists get upset. They get upset because they take the notion of the state and its supposed beneficence so seriously that they view an attack upon the state as an attack against themselves. This leads them to lash out at others, rather than crafting a good rebuttal (which is mostly impossible anyway).

Statists, please get over yourself. The rest of us are tired of your immature bullshit.

Number 9: Circular Logic

Statists usually know only a handful of statements to justify the existence of the state. These are often: “Who would make the roads?” “Who would take care of the poor?” “Who would put out house fires?”

What they do not realize is that an answer to one of these questions is an answer to all of them. If roads can be built privately and maintained privately, so can any other service. Presuming that private individuals are not concerned about the welfare of their fellow human beings presumes humans to be tremendously awful creatures who must be led along by the hand by their leaders. Try to question this, and you’ll just end up going round and around with the statist who doesn’t quite get it.

Number 8: Fun is Not Allowed

The statist believes that all activities which promote fun are not allowed. This is often more of an implicit, rather than overt, statement. The belief that people can’t grow a certain plant on their own property without harming anyone else is a belief that people don’t have the right to use and dispose of their property however they see fit.

It is a hallmark of state behavior that it seeks to end that which is beneficial while upholding that which is destructive.

Number 7: Let’s Get On the Bandwagon!

The statist, even when presented with evidence to the contrary, believes that because many people do something, it’s a good thing. One million people chop off their left hand? Good! This should be a law. Everyone who doesn’t chop off their hand should be penalized by having both their hands chopped off.

Seriously you guys, I know you can do better than this. There’s a reason why the word “sheep” is used to refer to a blind follower of the statist religion: it’s because sheep aren’t very bright, and will follow around anybody who happens to be nearby. This is a hard truth to realize, but it’s a truth nonetheless.

Number 6: Mandate or Ban

1333563183_birds_wants_in

A two-party system (which seems to be a uniquely American product) produces one of two results: the government either bans something or mandates that everyone must use it. The state is so impertinent that it believes no one has the right to choose for themselves. This is behind every state action which affects individual citizens. Either it is so bad that no one can do it, or it is so good that everyone must do it.

Both these approaches ignore the reality that people subjectively view things differently from one another. What’s good for one may be bad for another. One-size-fits-all solutions never work for everyone.

The result usually is like the above image where a bird is compelled to try and enter a house, but is prevented from doing so. That either part of this contradictory system should be upheld by statists shows a definite lack of understanding about what the states does.

Number 5: The State is Successful

Imagine if you would that the large puddle is debt and the biker is the state. The state knows the debt is there, yet it always goes into it anyway. Debt always trips up the state, preventing it from moving forward.

Statists, rather than recognizing the reality of the situation, presume that failure is success (or a lack of success is success). They make recognize the debt/pond as an abstraction, but they will never admit that the biker/state fell down, even when it is readily apparent that he/it did so.

Things like this make statists very difficult people to interact with.

Number 4: Nothing Needs Changing!

1318274785_mma_fighter_broken_leg

Statists who like to believe that the state is a good, productive organism also believe that the state is something which should never be abolished or abridged. The most they will admit to saying is that it needs “reformed,” which is another way of declaring that their own interests should guide the state, rather than those of another.

Even when it is clearly proven that life is better without government, statists continue to cling to their silly fantasy that government is good, that nothing about it should be changed. This is the same as saying that a mixed martial arts fighter with a broken leg should continue fighting. It is a statement that ignores evidence, reason and experience.

Number 3: If At First You Don’t Succeed, Blame Someone Else

Statists who adhere to one political party or another often do so with blinders on. This means that they will take any chance to embarrass their opponents as a way of making themselves look good. Functionally, this is called the politics of opposition. It is a belief system which exists only in negation of something, rather than an affirmation of something.

Unfortunately, a state of constant negation means that good proposals from the opposing party (which are more than likely few and far between) are opposed simply on the grounds that they come from that party. Again, empirical evidence is ignored in favor of an emotional state of mind.

Fortunately for the rest of us, when politicians get so caught up in bickering with one another, they spend less time banning and mandating stuff.

Number 2: Stealing is Good!

1330973683_squirrel_walks_in_through_the_window_and_steals_food

Ever heard a statist talk about how corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes? Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator from Vermont, often gets on his facebook page to talk about this. Somehow, if corporations and rich people paid the taxes they ought to pay, there would be less income inequality.

A cursory exploration of the facts proves this to be untrue. Very little of taxable income go back to the people who provided it, at least in America. Much of it goes to pay the exorbitant salaries and pensions of government workers. Much of it gets frittered away in pork projects which amount to a bribe from one elected official to a private citizen or group of citizens.

The statist suggestion that taxes produce wealth is the same as saying animals which steal food leave more than they take. This is clearly not the case.

Number 1: Destruction is Creation

1286883422_jet-blast-destroys-van

Government destroys. That is all it knows how to do. The statist fallacy of “government creates jobs” is the same fallacy which presumes a destroyed van creates demand for another van to be produced. By destroying the jobs that could be made available- such as low-paying, exploitative positions- the government presumes that people will be able to find a better paying job, that employers will consider it their duty to pay employees well.

Time and again, this has been shown to be completely fallacious. A destroyed van only produces one thing: extra parts and scrap metal for repair shops. It is not certain that the destruction of the van represents a gain for the van manufacturer, since the van’s owner might not be able to afford a new one. Nor is it entirely clear that anything the government destroys will create demand for an equivalent product or service in its place.

Get it straight, statists: destruction is destruction. Production is production. Two plus two does not equal five.

____________________________________

If you enjoyed this article, you can follow more of Winter on Liberty.me and check out Winter’s new book How to Write Fiction: Wrangling With the Written Word.

Please consider sending a BTC tip to Winter at: 1ACwZKrUPbZ5XWB3jEuTAsi8SrgeZftbxx

  • Tape Operator

    Unfortunately, your hyperbolic stupidity makes what could have been an interesting post into more Libertarian tripe, e.i., idiocy.

    Anyone dumb enough to think that you’ve shared something with them here isn’t equipped to use the tools that you think you’ve given away.