Why Statist Arguments Always Fail

When statists defend their position, their heroic efforts tend to degenerate into disjointed and sometimes confusing arguments. Those arguments reveal the collectivist, ethical dynamic that must be navigated to defend collectivist actions- actions that would be considered not rational or even heinous by individuals. In other words the statist must defend the actions of “we” instead of “me.” Even an intelligent and otherwise ethical individual must perform all sorts of contortions to reason his way through this deadly mine field. We’ve all been through that process.

A statist’s testimony reveals the complex argument required when attempting to justify and reason behavior as part of a hierarchal, collective institution- the state. One may be required to defend state actions that would be considered unethical or even criminal if performed by individuals. These types of problems, situations and ethical questions only arise when living within the context of collective, state rule.

When one lives one’s life as a free, moral, SOVEREIGN individual he is empowered to live a peaceful, moral, ethical life. As long as he does so, he need not defend his actions to anyone. If he instead volunteers his allegiance to a collective he must live its ethic and justify its actions and inconsistencies or risk being labeled treasonous by his self-appointed rulers.

Ultimately, the only power one has is how he lives his life as an individual. You surrender most, if not all, that power when you sign on as a “citizen.”