14 Hard Questions for Statists.

Since statists, here defined as those who believe a State (monopoly of violence or a government) have posed a list of 14 questions to libertarians, I feel it prudent to return the favor.  Here is a list of 14 tough questions for anyone who believes governments are legit.

14.  If governments are legit, why do they have to force people to comply with their laws?

13.  How can someone you have never met accurately "represent" you?

12.  If governments rule only through the consent of the governed, how do you explain such low approval ratings?

11.  If people have no right to use force against each other, how did they delegate this power to politicians?

10.  If it is protection from people who want to do us harm that we seek,  why are governments defended? as it is governments who go to war, attempt genocide, develop nuclear weapons, and consider innocent deaths an acceptable circumstance to war, lock people up who haven't harmed anyone, etc?

9.  If we need protection from monopolies forming in our economy, as monopolists get out of control and abuse their power, why should we want a monopoly on violence?

8.  If theft, killing, kidnappings, extortion, and so on are completely immoral, why should it be legal for anyone to do it?

7.  If government economic programs are really wanted by people, why does it have to be a matter of law? Why don't politicians take their ideas to the market to test whether or not people are willing to buy what they are selling?

6.  Isn't the thought of the government as a necessary evil the same as saying evil is necessary?  And if evil is necessary, are we not saying the absence of evil would be a bad thing?

5.  If governments are formed to protect rights, does it not follow that rules precede governments, as well as rights, and we can have both rules and rights without governments?

4.  When statists discuss the possibility of a legit war, it is in the context of a government defending people from another government; does this not mean it is still the existence of governments that is responsible for starting wars?

5.  The United States Government is made up of a few hundred people; where do they get the information they need to effectively control hundreds of millions of people? 

4.  Every time you walk by a store and refuse to go in, or you go in and refuse to buy an item, an economic decision has been made.  How can such a small group of people account for these kinds of decisions made by hundreds of millions of people?

3.  An anarchist would not stop anyone from giving money or following who they wish; why do statists insist anyone who refuses to give money to the people they wish to follow should be thrown in jail?

2.  If all politicians are human beings, and no human being has the right to use force against another, why does calling it law change the morality of what is being done?

1.  If murder and theft and the like are truly immoral, why should we want a society based on such actions?

Questions or comments, feel free to discuss!

My God

                                                                     My God

My God is not a mysterious person in the sky... my god is called Logic.

When I disobey my God, and act illogically, there are consequences to my actions.  I do not reach my goal(s) and as a result, my life suffers a temporary or permanent set back.

My God can be proven; that is, its essence is with us every day.  If it were not, you would have no understanding of the words written here... heck, you probably would not be alive if you were completely without logic.

My God is simple.  "If A then B" is a great starting point for following my god.

My God has never killed an innocent person... although people have died as a result of not following my god in some cases... but Logic itself is incapable of killing anyone.

My God does not require me to believe many things which I know are non-sense, such as talking snakes, in order to believe its narrative.  The narrative is simple; if you want to live, follow Logic.  If you don't, and you decide not to eat when you need food or drink when you need water, you will not make it.  In fact, my god demands that I question things that sound unrealistic.

My God does not need big buildings or men and women dressed in goofy outfits to get followers.  It gets followers on its own merit. 

Unlike any other God, if children were indoctrinated with a belief in my God, there would not be such resistance as there is with the mystical person in the sky, and children would actually benefit... for raising children with a foundation in Logic may actually be useful for them their entire lives, and does not require threatening their soul with eternal damnation.

My God does not require any other God to not exist in order to be proven.  It simply says "Ok, show me some proof of that."  while other Gods(?) say "Following me is of the utmost importance, and no, I will no prove myself to exist to you, you simply must believe it."

I am not always the best follower of My God, for I am human and prone to err.  But that does not invalidate the authenticity of my god...  if anything, it reinforces it... for it takes following Logic to prove someone has acted illogically.

My God is the most powerful force known to man.  Without him we may not have ever come out of our caves.  and yet, unlike other gods, it does not require money...  Logic does not demand you to give any percentage of your income to anyone.  Rather, it would ask you to question who it is you give your money to and determine if it is what you really want.  

You may say you choose not to follow my god, but we both know that to be a lie.  You follow logic when it suits you and perhaps use energy rejecting logic when that suits you... no doubt to gain some end that you have in mind... which in and of itself is an act based on logic... it is to say "if i question this or look at it logically, I may not believe it, so I won't."  Now, there are reasons which you may do this... I am not here to question the why, but to point out the action.  See Cognitive Dissonance.

                                            Thank You for reading about My God.  

Is the United States a "Christian Nation"?

My opinion on this debate is explained here without going into the fact that nations don't really exist, nor do they have any characteristics of their own.  


There seems to be a disagreement between plenty in the politically active as to whether the United States is a Christian nation.  In my opinion, this is not a productive debate to have, and here is why.

If this is a "Christian Nation", then passing laws forcing people to behave in a "christian" manner is unnecessary.  People will voluntarily choose to live their lives in such a way if that is where their faith lies.  If the U.S. is not a "Christian nation", passing laws will only lead to behavioral control efforts, and not a change in faith.  Non-believers will be pushed away from christianity, since members of the church would be seeking to control them, rather than win over their minds and hearts.

So regardless of whether the United States is a christian nation, laws passed to promote christian values can only have negative effects, no positive.  I'm sure there are some who would say that laws against murder are inspired by christian values... but that is also irrelevant.  Murder, theft, and other acts of aggression are not solely christian issues, they are universal issues. 

It is easily  understandable why this debate evokes such passionate feelings.  Some people want Christianity taught in schools and that sort of thing, while others don't want their kids being taught such things.  Then there is abortion... but what people have to realize is the real problem is whenever government gets involved, you only have one way of doing things.  Only in free markets can parents really choose what kind of education their child receives.  So the solution to this problem is to get government out of education... that way some parents can send their kids to christian schools and others won't have to. Sure, christians teach religion outside of school, and it is very likely that non-believers who are forced to pay for schools teaching religion (and as a result can't afford to send their kids to any other school) will simply tell their kids that the religion aspects of their education are completely illogical and lack any real proof.

The same thing goes for abortions.  Experience has shown that abortions, like drugs, simply get pushed to back alley deals and black market operations rather than truly being dealt with.

If you are pro-christian-values, I leave you with this bit of common sense:  the government is not going to pass some magical law that makes everyone behave how you want, and agree with everything you believe.  It never has happened and it never will happen.  If you want to drive people away from your religion, strive for the passage of any law necessary... that is one sure way to turn people off to christianity.

Liberals, Conservatives, and Tension

 Where does tension come from, and how does it build?  Tension comes from conflict.  No matter how big or small the conflict is, with every conflict comes an equal amount of tension.  The "size" of the conflict depends on the level of importance the issue is to the parties involved.  This is a subjective matter; if you don't think so, look at your partner's list of pet peeves.  Most likely you will find something on that list that you think is completely irrelevant. 

Escalating such tension is a simple matter.  Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before.  If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground  randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you.  Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry. 

I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives.  They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power.  When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power.  And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger.  In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues.  Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.

And it's only going to get worse.  Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies.  The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country. 

As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight.  If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens.  I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together.  That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight. 

It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions.  If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers.  If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are. 

I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary.  What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs.  Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check.  If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check.  If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because  you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check. 

But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money. 

If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...

(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent.  This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)

A Little Something To Consider About Jesus

At best I consider myself to be a Quaker.  I believe there is goodness in each and every person, and following that goodness is a simple decision.  But since the dominant religion in the United States is Christianity, and the story of Jesus, whether true or not true, holds an enormous value to me, here are my thoughts.

Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now."  or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..."  and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen.  (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.) 
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?

Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.

Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:

• Turning Water into Wine
• The miracle of draught of fishes
• The Feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000 men
• Walking on water
• Transfiguration of Jesus
• Calming the storm
• Finding a Coin in the fish's mouth
• The Cursing of the Fig Tree
• He knew he was going to be betrayed
• Raising of Lazarus
• His own Resurrection

The point here is, Jesus could most likely have done anything he wanted.  He gave his own life for our sins... but what did Jesus not do?  Jesus did not try to force a situation in which everyone knew at once that the God is Israel is indeed the one true God.  He did not try to remove man's free will and replace it with any correct doctrine so that all would be capable of going to heaven.  And he most certainly did not approve of violent solutions to problems.  As the question goes, "Who would Jesus bomb?"

After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes?  The answer is hopefully obvious at this point.  That particular method of solving problems is wrong. 

So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state? 

I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus.  This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified." 

In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!!  Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"?  The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way. 

If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy?  Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process).  If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace. 

I just want to wrap this up by being clear:  it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity.  I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable.  My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.