There is much to be learned about the inherent psychosis of statists (which included me when I was one) by watching how they dodge and evade simple questions. For example, of the many hundreds of statists I’ve asked, the vast majority perpetually obfuscate and twist, instead of answering simple questions. To wit, on the question of delegating rights we don’t have, why wouldn’t a statist just immediately and proudly say, “Duh, of course I can’t give someone else the right to do something that I don’t have the right to do!”? Or, regarding the question about whether human beings can make an evil act into a good act, why won’t a statist just say, “Of course people can’t do that!”? (A few of them actually do, and then quickly regret it.)
It’s because their brains skip ahead, and realize that stating the bleeding obvious will put them in a corner they can’t escape, and their entire view of government and authority will fall apart. So they refuse to say what they KNOW to be the obvious truth. But they also rarely want to give the obviously stupid answers (“Yes, I can give someone a right I don’t have,” and “Yes, certain rituals can make an immoral act into a moral act”), because then their belief system sounds as insane as it is. So they flounder, complain, whine, evade, change the subject, or decide they have to quick go do something else. This shows that somewhere, deep down inside, they SEE the contradiction, and are trying their hardest to pretend it’s not there–classic psychological denial, in every sense of the term. – Larken Rose
Five Questions (“Government on Trial”) https://youtu.be/g_GaDjonC5M
by Larken Rose
To learn more about the “Government on Trial” project, visit:
—- THE FIVE QUESTIONS —-
1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?
3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?
4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?
5) When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?
“Government On Trial” https://youtu.be/OktoHN0FDTM
by Larken Rose
It is high time that those in mainstream academia be challenged on the authoritarian mythology they continue to teach. So I am launching a Kickstarter project to do exactly that. (Watch the video for more details.) I encourage anyone who understands and embraces the concepts of self-ownership, non-aggression and voluntaryism to support and share this project. (If I exceed my funding goal–even far exceed it–I will simply include more and more teachers and professors in the campaign.)
Here is the link to the project: