The Gun in the Room

[fastpat]

An excellent article which deals with the same subject I've mentioned time after time; government violence.

The Gun in the Room

by Stefan Molyneux

One of the most difficult – and essential – challenges faced by libertarians is the constant need to point out "the gun in the room." In political debates, it can be very hard to cut through the endless windy abstractions that are used to cover up the basic fact that the government uses guns to force people to do what they do not want to do, or prevent them from doing what they do want to do. Listening to non-libertarians, I often wish I had a "euphemism umbrella" to ward off the continual oily drizzle of words and phrases designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence. We hear nonstop nonsense about the "social good," the "redistribution of income," the "education of children" and so on – endless attempts to bury the naked barrel of the state in a mountain of syrupy metaphors.

It is a wearying but essential task to keep reminding people that the state is nothing but an agency of violence. When someone talks about "the welfare state helping the poor," we must point out the gun in the room. When someone opposes the decriminalization of marijuana, we must point out the gun in the room. When someone supports the reduction of taxes, we must point out the gun in the room – even if one bullet has been taken out.

So much political language is designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence that libertarianism sometimes has to sound like a broken record. We must, however, continue to peel back the euphemisms to reveal the socially-sanctioned brutality at the root of some of our most embedded social institutions.

I was recently involved in a debate with a woman about public schools. Naturally, she came up with reason after reason as to why public schools were beneficial, how wonderful they were for underprivileged children, how essential they were for social stability etc etc. Each of these points – and many more – could have consumed hour upon hour of back and forth, and would have required extensive research and complicated philosophical reasoning. But there was really no need for any of that – all I had to do was keep saying:

Most political debates really are that simple. People don’t get into violent debates about which restaurant is best because the state doesn’t impose one restaurant on everyone – and shoot those trying to set up competing restaurants. The truth is that I couldn’t care less about this woman’s views on education – just as she couldn’t care less about my views – but we are forced to debate because we are not allowed to hold opposing views without one of us getting shot. That was the essence of our debate, and as long as it remained unacknowledged, we weren’t going to get anywhere.
Read the complete article.

[Lothar]

To reinforce Pat's point, watch this exchange, taped some years ago, with Milton Friedman. He was right then, his point is even more valid today.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6813529239937418232

Has time run out?

[m21sniper]

It seems to me, Pat, that if you really were serious about doing something, you certainly wouldn't be putting yourself on every LEO/Intel suspect list for domestic terror by continually babbling about how you're going to revolt, how we should all revolt, blah, blah, blah.

It seems to me that if you were really serious you'd be spending a lot more time shooting politicians than talking about shooting politicians on a PORSCHE FORUM on the internet.

.......

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by m21sniper
It seems to me, Pat, that if you really were serious about doing something, you certainly wouldn't be putting yourself on every LEO/Intel suspect list for domestic terror by continually babbling about how you're going to revolt, how we should all revolt, blah, blah, blah.

It seems to me that if you were really serious you'd be spending a lot more time shooting politicians than talking about shooting politicians on a PORSCHE FORUM on the internet.

.......

He is not serious. He just likes to cut and paste. Anyone serious would do as you mention above.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by m21sniper
It seems to me, Pat, that if you really were serious about doing something, you certainly wouldn't be putting yourself on every LEO/Intel suspect list for domestic terror by continually babbling about how you're going to revolt, how we should all revolt, blah, blah, blah.

Suuuure.

It seems to me that if you were really serious you'd be spending a lot more time shooting politicians than talking about shooting politicians on a PORSCHE FORUM on the internet.

.......

What makes you think that violence is the only form of revolt? What makes you think that politicians aren't already "in trouble"?

The US government has adopted layer upon layer of laws intended to protect itself against the citizenry, all to no avail.

We Americans can and will "alter or abolish" the government when it suits us to do so. 40% too 50% of the adult citizenry are already in varying stages of non-cooperation with the federal government, it won't take many more to abolish it.

You should take care not to be "left holding the bag", old boy.