top of page

Why are government supporters are so hard to convince they are wrong?



Government supporters-Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, alike-often complain and cry foul against voluntaryists, anarchists, and other proponents of no-government without duress free consent.


These government supporters claim that the dissenters are causing trouble and being aggressive outside of the realm of self defense.  These government supporters are claiming the role of victim.  Whether they do this innocently or intentionally I don't know.


What I do know is that they are anything but victims.  They may be pawns, useful idiots, or just misguided but not victims.  It is excusable to a certain extent, their ignorance, but when they have been given the truth to digest and reject it…then they are fair game to consider as potential casualties.


Yet, doing so will cause more to rally to their defenses.  We, as dissenters of government, will forever been seen as the aggressors because the status quo of government legitimacy has been maintained long enough for people to believe that if it exists then its okay!


The truth is that government by mere existence violates the abilities of all it claims jurisdiction over to live otherwise peaceful and honest lives.  This doesn't mean that without government people will live peaceful and honest lives.  It means that the people will be able to.


But with government people cannot.  They will forever be subjected to coercion to pay taxes, fees, and fines in order to legally earn a living, travel, and own property.  That's not peaceful.  That's violence hidden behind rule of law.  And that law is 'might makes right.'


People who support government because of a noble cause almost always, or in a related way, justify its existence because of their own fears.  Security that boils down to the 'what ifs' and not 'what is'.  People who support government do so on the grounds that other's they have never met will do something to infringe upon their abilities to live peacefully.  They fear the monsters that others could potentially become but are not guaranteed to be.


Government supporters hold in contempt everyone, without regard for the quality of their characters, to subsidize their inadequacies to cope with their own intellectual insecurities, their own fears of 'what if.'  These fears are never truly quelled because they are being only temporarily subdued by using fear of repercussion against others through coercive rule of law.  And this coercion will never end.  Everyone will forever be considered guilty without a chance to be proven innocent until the government in question is abolished or the subjugated relocates outside of the government's jurisdiction.


Do not mistake this premise of nobly supporting government for being akin to nonaggression with a centralized set of rules and laws.  Nonaggression, while true that it allows for an equal and escalated use of violence, force, coercion, and deception to disable or stop any unwarranted acts outside of the realm of self defense, is not coerced upon anyone.  Nonaggression is the default when there is an absence of other predetermined rules.  We know not to just go and pick a fight with someone for their lunch.  We could get the crap kicked out of us or worse, be killed.  That's the base premise of nonaggression and is only utilized in self defense, never in offense to prevent what could be but is not guaranteed to be; yet atop that is this:  We know that if we work together with others voluntarily that we will get better results, even if not immediate.  And if we don't we none the worse off because no one is initiating any unnecessary violence or coercion against another; there's no unnecessary destruction of property involved.  Honey is sweeter and more pleasant than crappy unwarranted aggression.


So when fear is used to placate fear, what is achieved?  Temporary security is all.  In order to be rid of fear logic must be used.  Logic can explain why others do what they do.  It neutralizes fear by illuminating darkness and showcasing things for what they really are.  It also empowers us to know the next set of 'what ifs'.  And if we can see the next set of 'what ifs' we can prepare for them defensively without offending the character's of those capable of such actions, even though they may never ever feel the need to employ them.


Yet, government supporters hide behind their pride, ignorance, and fear because they don't want to be filled with shame by admission of guilt.  And that guilt is the fact that they, by perpetuating government, become the very monsters for others that they feared others could be to them.


Sure it is easy to turn this around on me and other government dissenters; but which one of us is actually intervening into the lives of others without their consent in order to change the other's behavior through an act of aggression AND on the predetermination that the other could do something but is not guaranteed to do anything at all to harm the other?!?


It's not the government dissenter practicing voluntaryism or peaceful anarchy.  It's not the individual refusing to vote.  It's not the individual joining the armed forces.  It's not the individual getting a job on a government payroll.  It's not the individual who is trying to dismantle the system peacefully and replace it with nothing. 


Supporters of government as a necessary evil are not the victims.  Everyone else who dissents against any government, without duress free consent to be governed at all, are the victims.  Government supporters play the role of victims and martyrs only to be slaughter en mass by their own governments through perpetual war and an ever growing example of the Broken Window Fallacy, starting with taxation.


People who peacefully dissent against government and only engage in its operation under duress are the victims.  By means of the nonaggression principle, these victims have every right to consider all government supporters' rights, up to and including their right to life, forfeit.  Yet, those of us heavily vested intellectually, emotionally, and morally understand that mercy must be granted for all equally in order to benefit the whole of the human species.


So if you're a government supporter and think that people dissenting against government are the monsters…maybe you should consider what your support of involuntary government is making you look like.  When people dislike you for your support of an idea that intervenes negatively or unwarrantedly in their lives, they become what is more commonly understood by military officials and special ops as blowback.





Download a free PDF  of Liberty Defined here!

bottom of page