This is an article written by Toni Bernhard J.D. that was sent to me by an acquaintance at the end of an argument about government. I'm guessing the acquaintance's intention was to convince me of a need for government:
You can read the text first, although I'll be quoting vast parts of it below.
During the argument with my acquaintance, I was basically sticking to the one argument I always stick to when talking government: that it is immoral to use violence or threaten people with violence in order to get what you want.
Since government enforces everything it decrees by violence or the threat thereof, it is immoral.
This method of achieving what you want is called coercion. It's the opposite of engaging with one another voluntarily.
Voluntary interaction, however, is the only moral interaction between human beings, virtually everyone recognizes that. Even most people that are acting immorally know that they are in fact being immoral.
Government employees, however, seem to be a different kind of breed. They have actually convinced themselves that the use of violence or threat thereof in order to coerce people into submission was moral.
Up is down and down is up.
The real problem is, of course, that the majority of the electorate has convinced itself of this illusion as well.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not shaking my finger at you. I was once convinced of the same idea: that it's totally moral for government employees to be granted special rights, because they're part of this impeccable system that'll make sure there's no abuse of power while the populace is being kept safe.
But I woke up from this dream, and meditated enough over the nature of government to realize what it actually - factually - was: a system of coercion and violence. And after some contemplation of this, I was finally able to speak the three most powerful words any human can utter with regards to my previously held beliefs: I WAS WRONG.
The religion of government is so dangerous, because it convinces human beings acting immorally that they're acting morally.
Anyways, that's my whole point. Whenever I rant about government, I only focus on this one aspect: the use of or threat of violence to achieve its ends.
But people never address that. Instead they send me texts like the one I'm about to dismantle, without offering the only
argument that would make government moral: an argument that shows how the use of violence or threat thereof is transformed from an immoral action into a moral action as long as a government employee commits it.
This cannot be shown, of course, which is why I find it so baffling that people would simply refuse to acknowledge the immorality of government.
The article I was sent doesn't address the fact that government uses violence, it merely brings up school book arguments for government, which are going to be dismantled here real quick.
So let's get right into it:
- "Many people are feeling disconnected from government"
Of course they are. You cannot feel connected to an institution that's made up of human beings you've never met, let alone spoken to, in order to get to know even a fraction of their character
- "They see the relationship as one-way: government 'takes' in the form of taxes and by imposing rules and regulations on us, but it does not 'give'."
Not true. "They", if I may include myself in that group, see that it doesn't matter how much an entity "gives", as long as the money to supply those services was taken at gun point, i.e. under the threat of violence.
- "Truth be told, government and 'we, the people' are not just connected; we're utterly dependent on each other."
What a careless application of the word truth.
First of all: government and "we, the people" are one and the same. Government is made up of people like you and me, which is the very reason they should be held to the exact same standards.
Secondly, and more importantly: the only areas where I'm depended on government "services" is where I'm forced to use them.
What follows is the only true statement in this entire text: "Government depends on us for revenue…"
No comment there.The text continues with falsehoods: "…and we depend on government for protection and services, from inspecting the safety of the food we eat to saving lives when there's a human-made or natural disaster."
The reason this is wrong is because government is made up of people. It's human beings providing "protection and services, from inspecting the safety of the food we eat to saving lives when there's a human-made or natural disaster."
All of this could be provided without government. Government just claims the monopoly on some of these areas. Incidentally it is those areas that would make people independent from government.
Government is the only true monopoly in the world, because when government shuts out competition, people just go with it in the name of "public good", an abstract figment that private individuals conducting business for their own sake unfortunately cannot fall back on.
- "I'm going to use a hypothetical to illustrate what a day in the life without government would be like."
That's all people ever do: coming up with "hypotheticals" to show that the world would sink into chaos without government.
It's a disingenuous way of trying to dismantle the anarchist's argument, because it assumes that we'd be moving from a world WITH government to a world WITHOUT government over night, with everything else remaining just the way it is.
This is, of course, ridiculous.
The first thing that would have to change is the people's perceptions about the nature of government. Many have simply never contemplated the fact that the belief in authority has been the biggest death machine in human history (I'm deliberately calling it belief in authority here, because that's the more fundamental issue underlying the belief in any religion, of which government is just one).
First a shift of epic proportions needs to take place. I'm talking about the only revolution that is ever going to achieve anything: the realization in the hearts and minds of individuals, that you cannot use violence to achieve what you want, nor control other human beings to get them to act as you want.
While many people already realize the above, they have yet to realize that this is exactly how government behaves. This, however, is a vital step for the revolution to be successful.
Once this revolution has taken place, people all over the world will come up with many different post-government scenarios that all work for them in their particular communities, situations and environments.
And that's why most of the points the author makes next are moot, seeing that she makes two false assumptions:
Firstly, that it is the magical entity called government, and not human beings, that actually provides services.
Secondly, that the decision to abolish government would be made by one person/party overnight, hanging everybody out to dry.
Still, let's entertain some of her doomsday scenarios:
- "Your alarm goes off. You stretch and take a deep breath. 'Eww! What's that foul smell? Oh yeah. It's the odor from garbage in the street. The city used to have a contract with a private company for garbage pick-up, but the contract was paid out of local taxes. No taxes; no pick-up'."
See what she did there? Making it sound like "the city" was a person?
"The city" didn't pay for anything. The people forced to hand over the fruits of their labor did.
Why do you assume that the same people wouldn't part with the fruits of their labor voluntarily in exchange for having garbage removed from their streets?
Chances are that garbage collectors would actually be paid a decent wage if human beings were allowed to decide for themselves what to spend their money on and how much certain services were worth to them.
- "You get out of bed, go into the bathroom. You turn on the water to brush your teeth, but then have second thoughts about it: 'I can't be sure the water supply is safe; there's no government agency checking it for bacteria and toxins. It could even have raw sewage in it since all the government-run sewage treatment plants have been shut down'."
More language suggesting government was this magical entity, a high seat of wizards that are conjuring all these things that make our life great.
Checking your water quality isn't rocket science. And why would the sewage treatment plants be shut down post-government? Leave them open and operating, let them continue to be run by human beings, who will be paid by human beings that have an interest in drinking clean water.
- "Teeth unbrushed, you return to the bedroom to get dressed, but realize you don't know how hot or cold it will be outside today since there's no National Weather Service."
Seriously? I guess stepping outside and maybe looking at the sky is too much to ask.
The paragraphs that follow next all expose a state of childlike immaturity:
- "With that troubling thought still in your mind, you suddenly hear a shriek coming from your toddler's bedroom. You rush in only to find that his head is stuck between the bars of the crib. Poor Johnny. You recall Professor Bernhard [who is the author of this text btw] giving a lecture on government regulations. She said everyone complains about them, but regulations often set crucial safety standards for consumer goods.
"The example she used was a regulation that applied to the manufacturers of baby cribs. The regulation specifies the exact distance a manufacturer must leave between the bars on a crib, so that they're not too wide for a baby to be able to get out of the crib, but not so close together that a baby might get his or her head stuck. 'Hmm. Maybe regulations like that weren't such a bad idea. I definitely should have paid more attention in her class. Oh well, what's a few bruises? Time for breakfast'."
Wow.
Wow.
Wow.
First of all, let's remember that you're troubled because you couldn't make up your mind on the weather (you seriously need to toughen up a bit, and get to a state where the prospect of shifting weather doesn't trouble you).
On to the death trap crib:
Don't you think it's in the interest of a baby crib manufacturer to have ideally spaced bars, so that people will buy the product? Is that really a matter of regulation?
Are all baby's heads the same size (I don't know, but I would assume not)?
How about getting a crib that can be easily dismantled, so in case the baby's head gets stuck, you just pull out a rod? Human beings get inventive when they have to.
- "You take little Johnny into the kitchen. What might the two of you have for breakfast? You ponder: 'Not cereal because I can't be sure the milk isn't contaminated - no government inspectors at the dairies anymore. And what if there's salmonella in the eggs? I'll take my chances on some toast, hoping that the farmer didn't use more pesticides on the wheat than the government used to say was within legal limits. At least I canned the jelly myself, although I hope that the berries weren't over-sprayed with pesticides either. Oh well, this will have to do for breakfast'."
How paranoid can you be? And how irrationally trustworthy at the same time?
So everybody behaved immaculately while government was there, and where they didn't, there was always a government expert at hand to prevent malfeasance?
And once that government expert was gone, people immediately proceeded to turn into savages?
You're using your own delusion about the omnipotence of government here to make a point. Since the underlying assumption is flawed, the whole argument is moot.
The author doesn't really offer arguments in the first place. What she engages in is classic fear mongering, which is also what government does, seeing that is the number-one way of assuring that people won't contemplate a future without government. That's why there's always the next threat or enemy around the corner.
But the author's hypothetical day gets even worse:
- "Having dressed yourself and Johnny in layers since you don't know what weather to expect, you go out to your car. 'I'm so glad to be rid of those intrusive laws that insisted on car seats for young children. I'll just ride with Johnny on my lap. And, how freeing it is not to be required to put on my seatbelt!'"
That's called being an irresponsible mother, nothing else.
If you only protect your child because government ordered you to, you have a serious problem.
What follows next is any statist's favorite example in defence of government: the roads. Those beautiful roads, all built by the god called government, with no help from these useless human beings that have no role in the matter apart from driving their cars over them.
There's another hilarious example in the text of cars crashing into each other, because the traffic lights weren't working anymore.
Again, the author assumes that us stupid humans would just wake up on a day like any other, but with no government, and just fail at the most basic tasks. Like Zombies running into a closed glass door over and over again, wondering why they can't pass a seemingly invisible object.
- "And so, you sit in the middle of this pile-up [referring to the car crash] for two hours until a guy from a local garage arrives and pries the cars apart."
That's anarchy right there. Human beings getting shit done. She conveniently left out the fact that some human beings on site might administer first aid.
- "Finally, you're on your way, but only for a few minutes: 'What's that ahead? It looks like a tree has come down and is blocking the road, and there are no government emergency workers to move it out of the way. I'll have to turn around and take a different route.' By the time you get to work, you're so late that you're fired."
I'd say this woman is having a really, really bad day.
I won't list anymore examples from the text here. Feel free to read the rest yourself.
The whole text reads like a little child wrote it. A scared and incompetent child that has never learned to take care of the most basic needs in life.
And that is, of course, exactly the state of mind government prefers you in. There's a reason we either speak of a nanny state or a daddy state.
The former appeals to those with a mother complex, who've never learned to take care of themselves and want this protective "mother" that will provide them with all their needs and make them feel comfortable. The democrats usually want a nanny state. Their whole rhetoric is aimed at mental children, promising them everything for free, nothing has to be fought for or earned.
The latter appeals to those that like to pose as being tough, but don't think protection should fall under their own responsibility. The citizens in a daddy state like to keep government small, but still want government force for protection from domestic and foreign enemies, which they then leave the government to define for them.
These last three paragraphs could be expanded upon in a whole book, of course.
But this article merely meant to highlight the true nature of government, and then show how statists, i.e. believers in the religion of government, usually come up with all sorts of dooms day scenarios to prevent people from entertaining thoughts of true freedom.
Just like any religion would.