From the White-PillBox: Part 41
Another logically inconsistent position of statism: humans can be evil, which necessitates a State…comprised of humans.
This installment of the White Pill series offers another example of the internal contradictions of statism. As explained in essay 36, one of statism’s fundamental weaknesses (and thus a major White Pill) is how so many of the arguments used to support it lead to logical inconsistencies.
In this essay we examine the claim that government is necessary because of the potential for evil in humans.
The claim
The idea starts by acknowledging the possibility that at least some people can be wicked, selfish, and greedy 1. On this assumption (so goes the claim) freedom cannot work; so government is necessary to deal with the problem 2.
The White Pill: statism’s position is logically unsound for several reasons
The position ignores reality
Crime is not unique to anarchy; today’s statist world has plenty of it. So claiming a State is necessary to mitigate the crime we may have under anarchy contradicts the facts of the real world 3.
Statism is self-contradictory
Again, a State is claimed as necessary, to mitigate the evil that would exist under anarchy.
The contradiction is clear when put in plain English: in order to deal with the potential for crime, a formal institution is needed, empowered to regularly commit crime 4.
The notion is not merely self-contradictory; it has a damning implication that defies practical common sense. Statism’s solution to the problem of wicked, selfish, and greedy people is to give some of them the legal and exclusive right to coerce others. It is beyond naive to imagine this would not empower and magnify these weaknesses.
The poorest of comebacks
It is barely a rebuttal by the statist: somehow they imagine that government is special.
The statist acknowledges that people should not have the right to initiate violence, and also that we can be flawed, show poor judgment, lust for power over others, etc.
But to the statist, these flaws somehow do not emerge when we engage in politics (voting, running for office, holding office.) As if by magic, politics eliminates human flaws. Here, human judgement is sound and the propensity toward evil vanishes. The right to coercively rule others can therefore be safely entrusted to the State.
The blatant contradiction is obvious when the statist’s position is put this way:
People need to be constrained by a government ruling over them. Government itself does not need such a constraint…even though government is comprised of people.
Without further explanation, we are expected to believe that somehow, the system insures only the best and brightest hold government positions. Somehow, the State prevents the wicked from gaining power. And if the wicked gain power, somehow the system prevents them from abusing it.
Of course, the absurdity of all of these “somehows” is self-evident to anyone with a working brain. Plain reality demolishes them all:
They are the same humans in or out of politics. There aren’t two different species: the regular humans outside of politics (exhibiting flaws), and the moral super-humans who engage in politics (virtually flawless).
…
Once again, a justification for statism collapses in the face of logic.
There are those who believe that it is not merely some men who tend toward evil, but all men, by their very nature. For purposes of this analysis, the distinction is not important. Either way, being victimized by others is unpredictable. We never know when we may be harmed, and can rarely predict who may inflict harm upon us.
In fact statism is quite vague as to exactly how government deals with the problem. Some possibilities are:
The State deals with crime before it happens:
Perhaps government provides moral guidance
Perhaps government restrains potentially evil people
The State deals with crime after it happens:
Perhaps government represents victims
Perhaps government punishes criminals
The first three have no resemblance to the real world: government does not provide moral guidance; it does not identify evil people and restrain them; and it is rare indeed to see government truly and fully represent victims.
And even with the last method (government as a punisher of evil), the State does a notably poor job.
Advocates of statism cannot logically respond by claiming that a State simply results in less crime than anarchy. Reality cannot first be played out under statism, then re-run experimentally under anarchy so as to compare the results. This makes the claim of less crime under statism an unprovable assertion.
But nonetheless, it is small work to dismiss the claim.
The State violates the NAP with every action it takes, by its nature. The State’s volume of consent violations, which are constant, ubiquitous, formalized and legitimized, dwarf the petty crime that would exist in a stateless society.
The author will occasionally remind the reader that the target audience of this essay series is anarchists and libertarians. These groups are already familiar with the nature of the State. For this reason, these points are not footnoted. Readers outside of the target audience are encouraged to leave comments for further clarification.