From the White-PillBox: Part 47

Another logically inconsistent position of statism: you own yourself...you don’t own yourself.

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 contradiction that most quickly makes the statist’s head spin. It is the conflict between his correct instinct that we should all own ourselves, against his view that the State’s authority outranks the individual (which is to say, the State owns us).

Individual autonomy - that’s the ticket

The statist enthusiastically agrees that each of us rightly owns ourselves. He expects others to respect his self-ownership, just as he respects the self-ownership of others. It’s a rare statist who will object to this.

Until the State enters the picture

Now introduce the State and watch the neurons cross-fire.

Ask the statist what happens if a peaceful person, harming no one or their property, does not comply with a State rule. Does he have the right to be left alone? Or does the State have the right to arrest and confine him against his will?

It turns out that if it means disregarding a State order, the statist cannot have people doing what they want peacefully. Apparently you don’t own yourself that much.

The mental collision

So who outranks who, when it comes to the ownership of the individual?

If the individual owns himself, it’s morally wrong for the State to interfere with him.

If the State owns the individual, self-ownership is meaningless. Individual autonomy is outranked by government; it exists only at the pleasure of the State.

The mental stir-fry

Most statists can’t help but choose the State as the highest-ranking owner of individuals.

They do this with some psychological discomfort, however. The moral intuition of their conscience (their inner-anarchist, so to speak) nudges at them, reminding them that people should have the right to govern themselves.

But their statist indoctrination is too powerful. They can’t apply critical thinking to help overcome its rigidity in their mind. They are forced to entangle themselves in euphemisms and generalities about “what’s best for society”, “no man is an island”, “the law protects the innocent”, the “social contract”, etc. The more vague their reply, the easier it is to distract themselves from their contradiction.

Press here to self-destruct

Their initial reaction is their brain trying to make sense of their contradiction. But if they are pressed, their emotions are triggered. Directing their attention to the contradiction tends to elicit impatience or anger.

Their emotional reaction arises from a discomfort that they cannot explain. It’s the mental equivalent of an allergic response. Their “ideological immune system” cannot permit a foreign idea, and it reacts in kind.

The White Pill

We see the true bankruptcy of the statist’s position on self-ownership. As with all discussions of moral principles, a strong argument only needs reason and truth. Instead, responding emotionally is a direct admission of the weakness of the argument. In this case, another example of the weaknesses of statism.