From the White-PillBox: Part 45

Another logically inconsistent position of statism: in discussions about government, statists act civilized and respect consent…even while advocating that government violate consent.

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 its positions lead to logical inconsistencies.

In this essay we examine the mother of all statist contradictions. In every discussion about government, the statist shows peaceful behavior and thus demonstrates, by his own actions, his opposition to the initiation of force. All while declaring, within those very discussions, that he advocates the initiation of force by government.

Argumentation

The contradiction was expounded in full by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. It concerns argumentation itself. The term “argumentation” does not mean combative discussion; rather it refers to discourse…engaging in conversation with others to argue for or against positions.

An uncomfortable truth

The statist’s problem is profound. It is quite literally impossible to come up with a coherent argument for statism. Here is why…

Think of the statist as he is engaged in the very act of making his argument in favor of statism. Notice that he does so peacefully. He does not put a gun to his listener’s head as he makes his case. Rather we can observe him engaging in peaceful discourse.

Yet the arguments he makes advocate the initiation of force (via the State).

Inescapable

As we can see, the statist argues for the violation of peace, while, in his discourse, he demonstrates his respect for peace and the consent of others.

He is self-contradictory.

We presuppose a lot when we engage in discourse

The very act of engaging in conversation carries certain assumptions, perhaps so obvious that they escape us.

We own ourselves

To converse at all, we must presuppose our ownership of our selves (we must have an ownership right over our own bodies in order to talk, discuss, try to convince others, and be convinced by others.)

Engaging in discourse reveals that the participants assume the validity of self-ownership. Discussions would look quite different if a participant believed he owned the bodies of the others.

We need physical means to exist

A discussion is impossible without having physical resources handy. This starts with the space we occupy and extends to whatever objects sustain our life. This is necessarily property that we rightfully control.

Thus property rights is also a presupposition to having discussions.

Here too, the very act of carrying on a discussion demonstrates that all the participants mutually respect property rights. Again, discussions would look different if participants did not respect the property of others.

Anarchism is implied across the board

The very basic tenets of anarchism - self-ownership and private property - are presupposed in any act of human discourse. Even the ones that hypocritically advocate for the State.

No argument in favor of statism can escape this. Any form of government the statist tries to promote is by definition coercive in nature. But the statist self-detonates his every argument by engaging in peaceful discourse in the first place.

Conclusion - the most solid of White Pills

An argumentative challenge to anarcho-capitalism is impossible. The only non-contradictory social position consistent with peaceful interactions is anarchism.