From the White-PillBox: Part 55

Another logically inconsistent position of statism: open mindedness is a virtue; questioning the State is heresy.

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.

This essay examines the inconsistent ways that statists view objectivity and critical thinking.

Open and unbiased to all ideas

The statist likes to pride himself on being open minded, and similarly considers this admirable in others. He values clear headed thinking, as well as impartial and rational analysis.

It is reason, logic and fairness, above all.

That is, until we question the State…and then it’s…

Burn the witch!

No longer can we discuss, or even contemplate, ideas that challenge the legitimacy and morality of the State. This is treated as heresy.

Ideas that question the State cannot be permitted in the statist mind. The objectivity he took pride in, has somehow vanished. It is replaced by an allergic-like emotional reaction.

It’s not merely a difficult discussion; it is impermissible. The further the statist is taken down this path, the greater his discomfort. He reaches the point of condemning whomever communicates the heretical views.

Rational thought has left the building; we must denounce the heretic at once.

Follow the mob

Generally the statist does not call for literally hunting down State heretics and burning them at the stake.

But this is not because it is morally repugnant. It is because it’s not fashionable…it is not how we deal with heretics today.

Today we cancel dissenters from public discussion. We shun them socially. We put their jobs at risk. The statist is okay with this reaction. That’s because these are today’s fashionable reactions.

Others do it, and that makes it okay.

Which of course means he would have been right there in the crowd of witch burners, when that was socially acceptable.

So much for fair treatment

Once again, the statist is proud to claim he gives even-handed consideration to the ideas of others. Yet he sits idly by and watches how dissenters are treated (indeed, he often participates in that mistreatment).

What is objectively unfair treatment, is suddenly not something the statist is willing to judge. Being even-handed ends when the State is knocked off its pedestal.

Instead he resorts to responses that have the logical consistency of a schoolyard argument.

“If you don’t like it, leave the country”.

Indeed. Perhaps he assumes this is what happens when someone invades our home. Since we don’t like it, we are expected to leave, right?

“What if everyone thought the way you do?”

You know, the same devastating argument used against the early abolitionists.

Conclusion

Our calm, level headed statist is accepting of everyone’s ideas. His mind opens a clear path allowing others to speak freely; his heart judges not, because others have as much right to their opinions as he does to his.

But question the State, and the fangs come out.