From the White-PillBox: Part 62

The White Pill behind the classic questions: "How would (fill-in-the-blank) be handled in a stateless society?"

When confronted with the idea of a world with no government, the newbie’s first response is almost always to ask how certain needs would be handled.

On the surface this seems like a sincere question. Seemingly, they want to know who would educate children; who would stop criminals; and, of course…“who would build the roads?”

In fact, genuine curiosity is only one of several reasons these questions arise. And it is actually not the main reason.

Understanding what motivates these questions reveals an unexpected White Pill.

First, analyzing the question at face value

When each of us are first exposed to the idea of a stateless society, we naturally and sincerely ask these classic questions.

But let’s remind ourselves: for over half a century, libertarians/anarchists have faced the same questions over and over, as to how voluntary arrangements could build roads, educate children, settle disputes, administer justice, etc.

The literature almost bursts at the seams with practical answers. And in recent decades, the Internet has made finding these answers even easier.

So we must recognize that most people are not persuaded.

But more than this, we can observe that they tend to ask, again and again. Which means that over time, their reason for asking shifts from genuine curiosity, to something else.

This would suggest that pure intellectual curiosity is not the main motivator of asking these questions.

What’s happening in the statist’s mind when he keeps asking?

Why do they ask repeatedly? How are they actually processing the libertarian responses?

Let’s be generous. Perhaps they still need a bit more time to ponder them. Perhaps they are only 50% satisfied, patiently waiting for better answers. Perhaps they are 95% satisfied…just this close to being convinced. Perhaps they simply need a final, well explained argument to be fully on board.

Clearly, none of these are the case. The libertarian arguments, both moral and practical, are practically bullet-proof. And have been for decades. If the responses were considered with pure rationality and reason, the conclusions would be inescapable, and virtually everyone engaged in this dialogue would be convinced. And after 50 years of this, far more progress would have been made.

Even more significantly, the questions are parroted by intellectual opponents of liberty, who have no excuse for being ignorant of the arguments.

Our meager progress suggests the questions are rarely about the logical, moral and practical persuasiveness of the arguments.

One obvious conclusion: they are being insincere

Take statists at their implied premise. They purportedly ask these questions precisely because they worry that important services would not be provided. Assume they are concerned that people would be worse off without government.

This, of course, implies they care about what happens to people.

But here, statists drop their human empathy mask.

Many of them change the subject, or lose interest in pursuing the dialogue. At the first sign their old worldview is genuinely challenged, they move on. Apparently human suffering is not quite important enough to discuss.

Most telling of all: if they truly believed that education, justice and roads are important, statists would have a real problem with government’s own handling of these services. Asking how they would be done without government allows them to avoid a more pressing question: are they really handled today, with government?

Children are not emerging from high school with very good math, reading and writing skills. The justice system is at best unfair, and at worst a horrifying nightmare. The roads are a joke.

Asking how they would be handled without government practically answers itself: they could hardly be handled worse.

All of which shows that the face-value question is usually just a distraction. The question is asked for other reasons. And they do not involve the desire for human betterment and progress.

The real reasons behind the questions

Statists expect an overriding authority to handle things.

The statist does not want to feel a sense of responsibility for the problems of others, or even himself. If an authority figure claims to handle life’s problems, he is more than willing to let them do it. In a nutshell, he’s been trained to be intellectually lazy.

The statist is afraid.

Pointing out how badly the State handles things, and suggesting it can be different, strikes at his sense of security. We can tell him all we want that in a free society, we as adults would find ways to meet human challenges. But all he hears is that his assumptions are being challenged, and this brings fear of the unknown.

To avoid fear, and the burden of the responsibility of thinking, he turns to the safety of those classic questions. This helps distract from his discomfort.

The statist has nothing

Whatever impediments stand in the way of achieving a free society, rational counter-arguments are not among them. Statists ask the same questions over and over, because they have no comeback. Using these questions as distractions is all they can do. They certainly do not have logic on their side: they cannot overcome statism’s myriad contradictions. And they most certainly do not have the practical world on their side: the State is an intolerable institution.

The intellectual toolbox is bare.

So all that’s left are the endless questions that challenge a free society…used as barren distractions from the brutal, inhumane systems of statism.

The White Pill

Behind the classic questions of how problems would be handled absent government, is the desire for statists to avoid those very questions. The White Pill is simple: the insight demonstrates the pathetic weakness of any attempt at intellectual support for the State. And more: that statists are not so much adversaries, as they are scared children. If we understand this, we can find some empathy to help improve how we communicate.