Sept, 2016
Maybe Stefan Molyneax is right. We should shun statists. They are retarded and dangerous. If a person approves (or is even non-committal) about someone robbing you, then that person is an ethical and political retard. Oh, they may be smart in chess or physics, or the inside news about their local sports team, but in the field of ethics, and in particular political economics, statists are as dumb as dirt clods.
What brings me to this rant? I was talking to a statist last night. (Already a bad sign.) The conversation went something like:
Statist: But taxation is not robbery.
Me: What is the definition of robbery? Is it “taking someones property without the owner’s consent?”
Statist: Yes.
Me: What is taxation? Is it “government taking people’s property without the owner’s consent?”
Statist: Yes.
Me: So it follows. Taxation is robbery. By definition of robbery.
Statist: But I don’t believe that taxation is robbery.
This last comment was stated as a fact, with no supporting argument, but instead the statist diverted into how government schools help some people, and since she didn’t mind paying property taxes for government schools, she doesn’t care at all that the government robs others to fund it. The “argument,” if one can call it such, is that if Charles Manson goes around raping people, she doesn’t care because she likes fucking Charley.
This low level fingers-in-ears aggression apathy is characteristic of the lowest level of statist retard. These retards exhibit a zombie-like resignation to State oppression. They seem to have a statist anti-causualization zen fatalism - the attitude that things “just happen” - without any concern for causation or (for human action) moral culpability. For example, they think of taxation being like the weather, a fact of life, so complaining about injustice is meaningless.
One encounters 70-80 IQ politico retards who offer a imbecilicly lame rationale for ignoring government aggression - statist exceptionalism. This is the approach ridiculed so famously in the book “Animal Farm.” One states a laudable general rule or principle, then makes a special ad hoc exception for the State (or the ruling caste.) The most famous example is: “All animals are equal. Only some animals are more equal than others.” It may seem incredible that statist people really cite such self-exclusion fallacies seriously, but they are retards. What do you expect?
The “advanced” statist retard will say, “But robbery is the >illegal taking of someone’s property. Since taxation is legal, it is not robbery.”
Yes, one can simply define robbery as *not robbery* when the State does it, by assuming statist exceptionalism. This is an Animal Farm Addendum, an ad hoc exception, a self-exclusion fallacy. In particular, it falsely assumes that legality is determined by a monopoly State rather than by, e.g. moral concepts, ethical theory, or justice. As a wise man said, “An unjust law is no law at all.”
So, how can we determine which people are smart enough (in political and ethical theory) to talk to? I propose the Taxation is Robbery test. Just ask the person point blank, “Do you think taxation is robbery?” If he says “no” then he is almost certainly a statist retard. Shun him like the plague. Such people are ignorant assholes who would just as soon send a government goon to rob you or kidnap you as pull a lever to vote to steal your property and control your life. They are way too retarded to understand concepts like liberty and non-aggression, let alone free trade and hard money. You can do better. Try to find people … with brains.
