Libertarian Chat Friday (1/12/07)

"The Gun in the Room" is a terrific article sent to us by Lawrence Samuels. I'd like to add a discussion of it to the agenda for our Libertarian Chat tomorrow.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html

Best, Michael

The Gun in the Room
by Stefan Molyneux

"Put down the gun, then we'll talk."

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:

  "The issue is not whether public schools are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot."

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.

Here's another example. A listener to my "Freedomain Radio" show posted the following comment on the message board:

  If you say "Government A doesn't work," you are really saying that the way that individuals in that society are interacting is lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum that address the real debate. This thread's counterarguments all focus on government vs. free market society. The rules defining a free market are all agreed upon interactions at some level, just as a government is. Don't debate that a government is using guns to force others, when it's really individuals with guns, instead show how the other way will have less guns forcing others or how those guns could force others in a more beneficial way.

I responded in this manner:

  But - and I'm sorry if I misunderstand you - government is force, so I'm not sure how to interpret your paragraph. Let me substitute another use of force to show my confusion:

  "If you say that rape doesn't work you are really saying that the way that individuals in that society are interacting is lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum that address the real debate. This thread's counterarguments all focus on rape vs. dating. The rules defining dating are all agreed upon interactions at some level, just as rape is. Don't debate that a group of rapists is forcing others, when it's really individual rapists, instead show how the other way will have fewer rapists forcing others or how those rapists could force others in a more beneficial way."

  Do you see my confusion?

  Thanks!

It is a very helpful sign for the future of society that these euphemisms exist - in fact, I would not believe in the moral superiority of a stateless society if these euphemisms did not exist! If, every time I pointed out to people that their political positions all required that I get shot or arrested, they just growled: "Sure, I got no problem with that - in fact, if you keep disagreeing with me I'm going to shoot you myself!" - then, I would find it very hard to argue for a stateless society!

In more than 20 years of debating these issues, though, I've never met a single soul who wants to either shoot me himself or have someone else shoot me. I take enormous solace in this fact, because it explains exactly why these euphemisms are so essential to the maintenance and increase of state power.

The reason that euphemisms are constantly used to obscure "the gun in the room" is the simple fact that people don't like violence very much. Most people will do almost anything to avoid a violent situation. Even the most bloodthirsty supporter of the Iraq invasion would have a hard time justifying the proposition that anybody who opposed the invasion should be shot - because it was to defend such freedoms that Iraq was supposed to have been invaded in the first place! But how can I have the right to oppose the invasion of Iraq if I am forced to pay for it through taxation? Surely that is a ridiculous contradiction, like arguing that a man has a right to free speech, and also that he should be arrested for speaking his mind. If I have the right to oppose the invasion, surely I cannot be forced to fund it. If I am forced to fund it, then any right I have to "oppose" it is purely imaginary.

In essence, then, all libertarian arguments come down to one single, simple statement:

  "Put down the gun, then we'll talk."

This is the core morality of both libertarianism and civilization. Civilized people do not shoot each other when they disagree - decent people do not wave guns in each other's faces and demand submission or blood. Political leaders know this very well - I would say better than many libertarians do - and so constantly obscure the violence of their actions and laws with mealy-mouthed and euphemistic weasel words. Soldiers aren't murdered, they "fall." Iraq wasn't invaded, but "liberated." Politicians aren't our political masters, they are "civil servants," and so on and on.

Although libertarianism is generally considered a radical doctrine, the primary task of the libertarian is to continually reinforce the basic reality that almost everyone already is a libertarian. If we simply keep asking people if they are willing to shoot others in order to get their way, we can very quickly convince them that libertarianism is not an abstract, radical or fringe philosophy, but rather a simple description of the principles by which they already live their lives. If you get fired, do you think that you should hold your manager hostage until he gives you back your job? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position on unions, tariffs, and corporate subsidies. If you find your teenage son in your basement smoking marijuana, would you shoot him? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position on the drug laws. Should those who oppose war be shot for their beliefs? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position with regards to taxation.

Like the scientific method, libertarianism's greatest strength is its uncompromising simplicity. The enforcement of property rights leads to an immensely complex economy, but the morality of property rights is very simple - would you shoot a man in order to steal his property? The same complexity arises from the simple and universal application of the non-aggression principle. It's so easy to get lost in the beguiling complexities and forget to keep enunciating the basic principles.

So forget about esoteric details. Forget about the history of the Fed and the economics of the minimum wage. Just keep pointing out the gun in the room, over and over, until the world finally starts awake and drops it in horror and loathing.

November 16, 2006

Stefan Molyneux [send him mail] has been an actor, comedian, gold-panner, graduate student, and software entrepreneur. His first novel, Revolutions was published in 2004, and he maintains a blog. Listen to his podcast, which you can get by clicking here - or, you like iTunes better, you can click here. For more on DROs, please see my archives. He is host of Freedomain Radio.

Dr. Edelstein,

Thank you for sending the article, "The Gun in the Room." I've read the article and look forward to the discussion of this article and other topics at tomorrow evening's Libertarian Chat.

All the best,

Don Fields

Hi Michael,

I second Don in thanking you for the article. However, I cannot help
but once again challenge the idea of "the government" being the gun
in the room, sice "the government" is only a reflection of "the
people's" wish. I had a long discussion today with one of my
clients, who is running for office, and called to run by me his idea
of "mandating" solar panels in each and every home. We are running
out of oil, right? Our economy is based on oil, right? So, before our
economy collapses....etc. So, multiply this one person by "x", and
you will have "the government."

Have fun tomorrow, you all! (I will be at my computer cranking out
Forms W-2 for my clients, as mandated by "we the people".)

Marcy

Dr. Edelstein,

Thank you for sending the article, "The Gun in the Room." I've read

the article and look forward to the discussion of this article and
other topics at tomorrow evening's Libertarian Chat.

All the best,

Don Fields

From: dredelstein@...
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: sfdreamer@...; defliberty@...
Sent: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:37 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Libertarian Chat Friday (1/12/07)

"The Gun in the Room" is a terrific article sent to us by Lawrence

Samuels. I'd like to add a discussion of it to the agenda for our
Libertarian Chat tomorrow.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html

Best, Michael

The Gun in the Room
by Stefan Molyneux
"Put down the gun, then we’ll talk."
One of the most difficult â€" and essential â€" 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 â€" 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 â€" 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 â€" and many more â€" 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 â€" all I had to do was
keep saying:

"The issue is not whether public schools are good or bad, but

rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting
shot."

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 â€" 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 â€" just
as she couldn’t care less about my views â€" 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.

Here’s another example. A listener to my "Freedomain Radio" show

posted the following comment on the message board:

If you say "Government A doesn’t work," you are really saying

that the way that individuals in that society are interacting is
lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum that
address the real debate. This thread’s counterarguments all focus
on government vs. free market society. The rules defining a free
market are all agreed upon interactions at some level, just as a
government is. Don’t debate that a government is using guns to
force others, when it’s really individuals with guns, instead show
how the other way will have less guns forcing others or how those
guns could force others in a more beneficial way.

I responded in this manner:
But â€" and I’m sorry if I misunderstand you â€" government is

force, so I’m not sure how to interpret your paragraph. Let me
substitute another use of force to show my confusion:

"If you say that rape doesn’t work you are really saying that the

way that individuals in that society are interacting is lacking in
some way. There are many threads in this forum that address the real
debate. This thread’s counterarguments all focus on rape vs.
dating. The rules defining dating are all agreed upon interactions at
some level, just as rape is. Don’t debate that a group of rapists
is forcing others, when it’s really individual rapists, instead
show how the other way will have fewer rapists forcing others or how
those rapists could force others in a more beneficial way."

Do you see my confusion?
Thanks!
It is a very helpful sign for the future of society that these

euphemisms exist â€" in fact, I would not believe in the moral
superiority of a stateless society if these euphemisms did not exist!
If, every time I pointed out to people that their political positions
all required that I get shot or arrested, they just growled: "Sure, I
got no problem with that â€" in fact, if you keep disagreeing with me
I’m going to shoot you myself!" â€" then, I would find it very hard
to argue for a stateless society!

In more than 20 years of debating these issues, though, I’ve

never met a single soul who wants to either shoot me himself or have
someone else shoot me. I take enormous solace in this fact, because
it explains exactly why these euphemisms are so essential to the
maintenance and increase of state power.

The reason that euphemisms are constantly used to obscure "the gun

in the room" is the simple fact that people don’t like violence
very much. Most people will do almost anything to avoid a violent
situation. Even the most bloodthirsty supporter of the Iraq invasion
would have a hard time justifying the proposition that anybody who
opposed the invasion should be shot â€" because it was to defend such
freedoms that Iraq was supposed to have been invaded in the first
place! But how can I have the right to oppose the invasion of Iraq if
I am forced to pay for it through taxation? Surely that is a
ridiculous contradiction, like arguing that a man has a right to free
speech, and also that he should be arrested for speaking his mind. If
I have the right to oppose the invasion, surely I cannot be forced to
fund it. If I am forced to fund it, then any right I have to "oppose"
it is purely imaginary.

In essence, then, all libertarian arguments come down to one

single, simple statement:

"Put down the gun, then we’ll talk."
This is the core morality of both libertarianism and civilization.

Civilized people do not shoot each other when they disagree â€"
decent people do not wave guns in each other’s faces and demand
submission or blood. Political leaders know this very well â€" I
would say better than many libertarians do â€" and so constantly
obscure the violence of their actions and laws with mealy-mouthed and
euphemistic weasel words. Soldiers aren’t murdered, they "fall."
Iraq wasn’t invaded, but "liberated." Politicians aren’t our
political masters, they are "civil servants," and so on and on.

Although libertarianism is generally considered a radical doctrine,

the primary task of the libertarian is to continually reinforce the
basic reality that almost everyone already is a libertarian. If we
simply keep asking people if they are willing to shoot others in
order to get their way, we can very quickly convince them that
libertarianism is not an abstract, radical or fringe philosophy, but
rather a simple description of the principles by which they already
live their lives. If you get fired, do you think that you should hold
your manager hostage until he gives you back your job? No? Then you
already hold a libertarian position on unions, tariffs, and corporate
subsidies. If you find your teenage son in your basement smoking
marijuana, would you shoot him? No? Then you already hold a
libertarian position on the drug laws. Should those who oppose war be
shot for their beliefs? No? Then you already hold a libertarian
position with regards to taxation.

Like the scientific method, libertarianism’s greatest strength is

its uncompromising simplicity. The enforcement of property rights
leads to an immensely complex economy, but the morality of property
rights is very simple â€" would you shoot a man in order to steal his
property? The same complexity arises from the simple and universal
application of the non-aggression principle. It’s so easy to get
lost in the beguiling complexities and forget to keep enunciating the
basic principles.

So forget about esoteric details. Forget about the history of the

Fed and the economics of the minimum wage. Just keep pointing out the
gun in the room, over and over, until the world finally starts awake
and drops it in horror and loathing.

November 16, 2006
Stefan Molyneux [send him mail] has been an actor, comedian, gold-

panner, graduate student, and software entrepreneur. His first novel,
Revolutions was published in 2004, and he maintains a blog. Listen to
his podcast, which you can get by clicking here â€" or, you like
iTunes better, you can click here. For more on DROs, please see my
archives. He is host of Freedomain Radio.

Marcy,

  If we were living in something approaching a direct democracy, under a small government, where ordinary people literally voted on all significant policies and procedures, I think we might live in a society where it could be said with some degree of accuracy that government is "only a reflection of 'the people's' wish." Even then of course an astute observer might point out that any large group of people is going to have *many* wishes, often contradictory, and not just one.

  But under the current system, the gulf between what governments do and what the people they claim jurisdiction over want is vast. Virtually all current governments consist of privileged, self-serving and unaccountable subsets of humanity whose actions do not accurately reflect even the will of a majority, let alone that of the entire population subject to their bidding.

  To start with, many people are directly disenfranchised and have no voice in the process by which government representatives are selected. In the United States this group includes "undocumented" residents who don't have government's permission to be in the area (reportedly about 11 million), people incarcerated or on probation or parole for various victimless "crimes" or denied the vote for past felonies (probably at least another several million more -- see http://www.halexandria.org/dward267.htm), and people under the age of 18 who would be capable of making voter choices and wish to do so (who knows how many millions). Among those who *are* allowed to vote, many (probably at least hundreds of thousands of voters each year) have their ballots improperly voided, discarded, miscounted, do not receive their voting materials, are sent to the wrong polling place, and so forth due to voter fraud and government incompetence.

  Those constitute the directly disenfranchised. Then there are the indirectly disenfranchised. In the U.S. this includes vast numbers of American adults who live in non-competitive districts which have been gerrymandered so that the incumbent is virtually guaranteed reelection, with the U.S. Congress (for instance) have a lower turnover rate than the old Soviet Politburo, so that they have no actual choice in who represents them. Some representatives are so secure in their sense of entitlement under the system that they refuse to even debate their ballot-qualified challengers (e.g. Nancy Pelosi right here where we live). The indirectly disenfranchised also include many people who vote for alternative candidates and parties, which due to the lack of proportional representation, are denied any seats in legislative bodies unless they win a plurality of votes in a particular district, thus disenfranchising those who supported them.

  Then there is the "power corrupts" factor. Representatives frequently lie to their constituents and win office on false promises, and there is no mechanism to prevent them from doing so. They say what they think people want to hear, and then most often do what serves their own interests or those of their (establishment) political parties or their campaign contributors, rather than what reflects the wishes of their constituents.

  Then there is the ignorance factor. Even in cases where legislators and elected officials are relatively honest and attempt to vote as their constituents wish, the people are poorly informed due to (a) government secrecy, (b) deliberate misinformation by those in power, (c) lack of accountability to the public, and (d) the sheer complication and vastness of government. In all likelihood if members of the public knew what was really going on, many more of them would oppose many aspects of government that they now support. So their current choices cannot truly be said to be reflective of their most fundamental wishes.

  Then there is the unelected bureaucracy factor. Even when legislators are honest and attempt to vote as people wish, and the wishes of the public are based on relatively complete and accurate information about the government decision in question (and honestly, how often are both of those things true?), the laws and policies themselves are left to largely unelected bureaucrats. Most of these folks have only small accountability to the elected leaders, and operate mainly out of self-interest and inertia. Even when they carry out their jobs and attempt to follow directions diligently, governments are frequently so vast and complex that directives and intentions get misinterpreted as they are passed along to those who are supposed to carry them out. So there is little guarantee that laws and policies will be enacted by the legislators in the ways that the legislators envisioned.

  Then there is the "unintended consequences" factor. Even when (a) legislators are honest and faithful to their constituents, (b) the constituents are adequately informed, (c) the bureaucrats make a good faith attempt to carry out the laws and policies as intended, and (d) these attempts are not stymied by the sheer scope and complexity of it all, the nature of economics and human action is such that centrally planned edicts will often have unintended consequences, sometimes achieving precisely the opposite of the desired effect. In such cases it can perhaps be said that the public is in fact responsible. But whereas an individual or a smaller and less bureaucratic organization might be relatively quick to change a policy that was producing unintended and undesired effects, governments are typically very slow to do so. Therefore, when government policies continue well beyond the point where it is obvious to most people who study the matters that they are producing results contrary to their intended purposes, such policies can no longer really be said to reflect the wishes of the public.

  In conclusion, I think there is no way in hell that we can accurately say government reflects the wishes of the people. I think that to say so is to blame the victims.

Love & liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Hi Starchild,

As always, a thoughtful analysis from you. Thank you. My response
remains, "yes", government does reflect the will of the people.
Perhaps the essence of our argument exists in your closing sentence
regarding blaming the victims. If we see ourselves as victims, we
will, of course, need disembodied entities such as "the government,"
to single out as the cause for our woes. Yes, you are correct, we
have laws that determine who can and cannot vote; thus, I am speaking
of the lawful electorate. Yes, you are correct, we have
the "ignorance" factor; and, I might add, the lazy factor (I did not
get my voting materials in the mail, so I did not know there was an
election going on); thus, the resulting "government" accurately
reflects these factors. In summary, "Every Nation has the government
it deserves."

BTW, Starchild, I see a disconnect between your words and your
actions. Your analysis seems to be based on victimhood; whereas your
actions are definitely "can do!"(running for office, participating in
debates, attending local meetings, speaking out). So, are you saying
you can influence events, whereas some cannot?

Regards,

Marcy

Marcy,

  If we were living in something approaching a direct

democracy, under a

small government, where ordinary people literally voted on all
significant policies and procedures, I think we might live in a

society

where it could be said with some degree of accuracy that government

is

"only a reflection of 'the people's' wish." Even then of course an
astute observer might point out that any large group of people is

going

to have *many* wishes, often contradictory, and not just one.

  But under the current system, the gulf between what

governments do and

what the people they claim jurisdiction over want is vast.

Virtually

all current governments consist of privileged, self-serving and
unaccountable subsets of humanity whose actions do not accurately
reflect even the will of a majority, let alone that of the entire
population subject to their bidding.

  To start with, many people are directly disenfranchised and

have no

voice in the process by which government representatives are

selected.

In the United States this group includes "undocumented" residents

who

don't have government's permission to be in the area (reportedly

about

11 million), people incarcerated or on probation or parole for

various

victimless "crimes" or denied the vote for past felonies (probably

at

least another several million more -- see
http://www.halexandria.org/dward267.htm), and people under the age

of

18 who would be capable of making voter choices and wish to do so

(who

knows how many millions). Among those who *are* allowed to vote,

many

(probably at least hundreds of thousands of voters each year) have
their ballots improperly voided, discarded, miscounted, do not

receive

their voting materials, are sent to the wrong polling place, and so
forth due to voter fraud and government incompetence.

  Those constitute the directly disenfranchised. Then there are

the

indirectly disenfranchised. In the U.S. this includes vast numbers

of

American adults who live in non-competitive districts which have

been

gerrymandered so that the incumbent is virtually guaranteed

reelection,

with the U.S. Congress (for instance) have a lower turnover rate

than

the old Soviet Politburo, so that they have no actual choice in who
represents them. Some representatives are so secure in their sense

of

entitlement under the system that they refuse to even debate their
ballot-qualified challengers (e.g. Nancy Pelosi right here where we
live). The indirectly disenfranchised also include many people who

vote

for alternative candidates and parties, which due to the lack of
proportional representation, are denied any seats in legislative

bodies

unless they win a plurality of votes in a particular district, thus
disenfranchising those who supported them.

  Then there is the "power corrupts" factor. Representatives

frequently

lie to their constituents and win office on false promises, and

there

is no mechanism to prevent them from doing so. They say what they

think

people want to hear, and then most often do what serves their own
interests or those of their (establishment) political parties or

their

campaign contributors, rather than what reflects the wishes of

their

constituents.

  Then there is the ignorance factor. Even in cases where

legislators

and elected officials are relatively honest and attempt to vote as
their constituents wish, the people are poorly informed due to (a)
government secrecy, (b) deliberate misinformation by those in

power,

(c) lack of accountability to the public, and (d) the sheer
complication and vastness of government. In all likelihood if

members

of the public knew what was really going on, many more of them

would

oppose many aspects of government that they now support. So their
current choices cannot truly be said to be reflective of their most
fundamental wishes.

  Then there is the unelected bureaucracy factor. Even when

legislators

are honest and attempt to vote as people wish, and the wishes of

the

public are based on relatively complete and accurate information

about

the government decision in question (and honestly, how often are

both

of those things true?), the laws and policies themselves are left

to

largely unelected bureaucrats. Most of these folks have only small
accountability to the elected leaders, and operate mainly out of
self-interest and inertia. Even when they carry out their jobs and
attempt to follow directions diligently, governments are frequently

so

vast and complex that directives and intentions get misinterpreted

as

they are passed along to those who are supposed to carry them out.

So

there is little guarantee that laws and policies will be enacted by

the

legislators in the ways that the legislators envisioned.

  Then there is the "unintended consequences" factor. Even when

(a)

legislators are honest and faithful to their constituents, (b) the
constituents are adequately informed, (c) the bureaucrats make a

good

faith attempt to carry out the laws and policies as intended, and

(d)

these attempts are not stymied by the sheer scope and complexity of

it

all, the nature of economics and human action is such that

centrally

planned edicts will often have unintended consequences, sometimes
achieving precisely the opposite of the desired effect. In such

cases

it can perhaps be said that the public is in fact responsible. But
whereas an individual or a smaller and less bureaucratic

organization

might be relatively quick to change a policy that was producing
unintended and undesired effects, governments are typically very

slow

to do so. Therefore, when government policies continue well beyond

the

point where it is obvious to most people who study the matters that
they are producing results contrary to their intended purposes,

such

policies can no longer really be said to reflect the wishes of the
public.

  In conclusion, I think there is no way in hell that we can

accurately

say government reflects the wishes of the people. I think that to

say

so is to blame the victims.

Love & liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

> Hi Michael,
>
> I second Don in thanking you for the article. However, I cannot

help

> but once again challenge the idea of "the government" being the

gun

> in the room, sice "the government" is only a reflection of "the
> people's" wish. I had a long discussion today with one of my
> clients, who is running for office, and called to run by me his

idea

> of "mandating" solar panels in each and every home. We are running
> out of oil, right? Our economy is based on oil, right? So, before

our

> economy collapses....etc. So, multiply this one person by "x", and
> you will have "the government."
>
> Have fun tomorrow, you all! (I will be at my computer cranking out
> Forms W-2 for my clients, as mandated by "we the people".)
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> > Dr. Edelstein,
> >
> > Thank you for sending the article, "The Gun in the Room." I've

read

> the article and look forward to the discussion of this article and
> other topics at tomorrow evening's Libertarian Chat.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Don Fields
> >
> >
> > From: dredelstein@
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Cc: sfdreamer@; defliberty@
> > Sent: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:37 PM
> > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Libertarian Chat Friday (1/12/07)
> >
> >
> > "The Gun in the Room" is a terrific article sent to us by

Lawrence

> Samuels. I'd like to add a discussion of it to the agenda for our
> Libertarian Chat tomorrow.
> >
> > http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html
> >
> > Best, Michael
> >
> >
> > The Gun in the Room
> > by Stefan Molyneux
> > "Put down the gun, then we’ll talk."
> > One of the most difficult â€" and essential â€" 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 â€" 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 â€"

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 â€" and many more â€"

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 â€" all I had to do

was

> keep saying:
> > "The issue is not whether public schools are good or bad, but
> rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting
> shot."
> > 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 â€" 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 â€"

just

> as she couldn’t care less about my views â€" 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.
> > Here’s another example. A listener to my "Freedomain Radio"

show

> posted the following comment on the message board:
> > If you say "Government A doesn’t work," you are really saying
> that the way that individuals in that society are interacting is
> lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum that
> address the real debate. This thread’s counterarguments all

focus

> on government vs. free market society. The rules defining a free
> market are all agreed upon interactions at some level, just as a
> government is. Don’t debate that a government is using guns to
> force others, when it’s really individuals with guns, instead

show

> how the other way will have less guns forcing others or how those
> guns could force others in a more beneficial way.
> > I responded in this manner:
> > But â€" and I’m sorry if I misunderstand you â€" government is
> force, so I’m not sure how to interpret your paragraph. Let me
> substitute another use of force to show my confusion:
> > "If you say that rape doesn’t work you are really saying that

the

> way that individuals in that society are interacting is lacking in
> some way. There are many threads in this forum that address the

real

> debate. This thread’s counterarguments all focus on rape vs.
> dating. The rules defining dating are all agreed upon

interactions at

> some level, just as rape is. Don’t debate that a group of

rapists

> is forcing others, when it’s really individual rapists, instead
> show how the other way will have fewer rapists forcing others or

how

> those rapists could force others in a more beneficial way."
> > Do you see my confusion?
> > Thanks!
> > It is a very helpful sign for the future of society that these
> euphemisms exist â€" in fact, I would not believe in the moral
> superiority of a stateless society if these euphemisms did not

exist!

> If, every time I pointed out to people that their political

positions

> all required that I get shot or arrested, they just

growled: "Sure, I

> got no problem with that â€" in fact, if you keep disagreeing

with me

> I’m going to shoot you myself!" â€" then, I would find it very

hard

> to argue for a stateless society!
> > In more than 20 years of debating these issues, though, I’ve
> never met a single soul who wants to either shoot me himself or

have

> someone else shoot me. I take enormous solace in this fact,

because

> it explains exactly why these euphemisms are so essential to the
> maintenance and increase of state power.
> > The reason that euphemisms are constantly used to obscure "the

gun

> in the room" is the simple fact that people don’t like violence
> very much. Most people will do almost anything to avoid a violent
> situation. Even the most bloodthirsty supporter of the Iraq

invasion

> would have a hard time justifying the proposition that anybody who
> opposed the invasion should be shot â€" because it was to defend

such

> freedoms that Iraq was supposed to have been invaded in the first
> place! But how can I have the right to oppose the invasion of

Iraq if

> I am forced to pay for it through taxation? Surely that is a
> ridiculous contradiction, like arguing that a man has a right to

free

> speech, and also that he should be arrested for speaking his

mind. If

> I have the right to oppose the invasion, surely I cannot be

forced to

> fund it. If I am forced to fund it, then any right I have

to "oppose"

> it is purely imaginary.
> > In essence, then, all libertarian arguments come down to one
> single, simple statement:
> > "Put down the gun, then we’ll talk."
> > This is the core morality of both libertarianism and

civilization.

> Civilized people do not shoot each other when they disagree â€"
> decent people do not wave guns in each other’s faces and demand
> submission or blood. Political leaders know this very well â€" I
> would say better than many libertarians do â€" and so constantly
> obscure the violence of their actions and laws with mealy-mouthed

and

> euphemistic weasel words. Soldiers aren’t murdered, they "fall."
> Iraq wasn’t invaded, but "liberated." Politicians aren’t our
> political masters, they are "civil servants," and so on and on.
> > Although libertarianism is generally considered a radical

doctrine,

> the primary task of the libertarian is to continually reinforce

the

> basic reality that almost everyone already is a libertarian. If we
> simply keep asking people if they are willing to shoot others in
> order to get their way, we can very quickly convince them that
> libertarianism is not an abstract, radical or fringe philosophy,

but

> rather a simple description of the principles by which they

already

> live their lives. If you get fired, do you think that you should

hold

> your manager hostage until he gives you back your job? No? Then

you

> already hold a libertarian position on unions, tariffs, and

corporate

> subsidies. If you find your teenage son in your basement smoking
> marijuana, would you shoot him? No? Then you already hold a
> libertarian position on the drug laws. Should those who oppose

war be

> shot for their beliefs? No? Then you already hold a libertarian
> position with regards to taxation.
> > Like the scientific method, libertarianism’s greatest

strength is

> its uncompromising simplicity. The enforcement of property rights
> leads to an immensely complex economy, but the morality of

property

> rights is very simple â€" would you shoot a man in order to steal

his

> property? The same complexity arises from the simple and universal
> application of the non-aggression principle. It’s so easy to get
> lost in the beguiling complexities and forget to keep enunciating

the

> basic principles.
> > So forget about esoteric details. Forget about the history of

the

> Fed and the economics of the minimum wage. Just keep pointing out

the

> gun in the room, over and over, until the world finally starts

awake

> and drops it in horror and loathing.
> > November 16, 2006
> > Stefan Molyneux [send him mail] has been an actor, comedian,

gold-

> panner, graduate student, and software entrepreneur. His first

novel,

> Revolutions was published in 2004, and he maintains a blog.

Listen to

> his podcast, which you can get by clicking here â€" or, you like
> iTunes better, you can click here. For more on DROs, please see my
> archives. He is host of Freedomain Radio.
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> __
> > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
> security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos

from

Hi Marcy,

  Thanks for your kind words. Perhaps our difference of opinion may stem from different senses of what it means to be a "victim?" By portraying the people as victims of government, I am not suggesting that they (we) are helpless, merely that they (we) have been (and are being) wronged. I believe victims should fight back and seek justice. Not that I automatically oppose sentiments like mercy and empathy, or a Gandhian calmness toward oppressors, but it's better if such noble-spiritedness comes from a place of strength, not from having no other options.

  It seems to me that to say "the oppressive government is us" lets those who are actively doing the oppressing off the hook. Already too many State employees are inclined to take the attitude "I'm just doing my job." I consider that unacceptable, just as it was at Nuremberg. Imagine a robber assaulting you and then when caught telling the police, "it's really my family's fault, they wanted me to do it" -- no, it's really *your* fault, *you did it*. I believe making everyone accountable would result in no one being accountable. Kind of a tragedy of the moral commons.

Love & liberty,
      <<< starchild >>>

Hi Starchild,

We are in complete agreement about the virtues of fighting back from
a position of calm strength, seeking justice, holding accountable
those whom we feel have wronged us; and viewed in such light, these
actions may not necessarily constitute victimhood (in the sense that
I was using the word). Thus, the majority of the residents of San
Francisco, for example, placed a specific set of Supervisors in City
Hall. These elected representatives of the people fought hard to seek
justice for the average worker, who starting this February will
receive mandated sick leave from their employers. Who is the
ultimate originator of said sick-leave mandate? The government? The
Supervisors? The people who elected said Supervisors? Sounds to me
that the employers are not victims of government wrongdoing, but of
their fellow citizens' wrongheadedness!

So, again, I say let us all follow the example of your actions and
attend City meetings, speak your piece in talk shows, etc.

Marcy

Hi Marcy,

  Thanks for your kind words. Perhaps our difference of opinion

may stem

from different senses of what it means to be a "victim?" By

portraying

the people as victims of government, I am not suggesting that they

(we)

are helpless, merely that they (we) have been (and are being)

wronged.

I believe victims should fight back and seek justice. Not that I
automatically oppose sentiments like mercy and empathy, or a

Gandhian

calmness toward oppressors, but it's better if such noble-

spiritedness

comes from a place of strength, not from having no other options.

  It seems to me that to say "the oppressive government is us"

lets

those who are actively doing the oppressing off the hook. Already

too

many State employees are inclined to take the attitude "I'm just

doing

my job." I consider that unacceptable, just as it was at Nuremberg.
Imagine a robber assaulting you and then when caught telling the
police, "it's really my family's fault, they wanted me to do it" --

no,

it's really *your* fault, *you did it*. I believe making everyone
accountable would result in no one being accountable. Kind of a

tragedy

of the moral commons.

Love & liberty,
      <<< starchild >>>

> Hi Starchild,
>
> As always, a thoughtful analysis from you. Thank you. My response
> remains, "yes", government does reflect the will of the people.
> Perhaps the essence of our argument exists in your closing

sentence

> regarding blaming the victims. If we see ourselves as victims, we
> will, of course, need disembodied entities such as "the

government,"

> to single out as the cause for our woes. Yes, you are correct, we
> have laws that determine who can and cannot vote; thus, I am

speaking

> of the lawful electorate. Yes, you are correct, we have
> the "ignorance" factor; and, I might add, the lazy factor (I did

not

> get my voting materials in the mail, so I did not know there was

an

> election going on); thus, the resulting "government" accurately
> reflects these factors. In summary, "Every Nation has the

government

> it deserves."
>
> BTW, Starchild, I see a disconnect between your words and your
> actions. Your analysis seems to be based on victimhood; whereas

your

> actions are definitely "can do!"(running for office,

participating in

> debates, attending local meetings, speaking out). So, are you

saying

> you can influence events, whereas some cannot?
>
> Regards,
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> > Marcy,
> >
> > If we were living in something approaching a direct
> democracy, under a
> > small government, where ordinary people literally voted on all
> > significant policies and procedures, I think we might live in a
> society
> > where it could be said with some degree of accuracy that

government

> is
> > "only a reflection of 'the people's' wish." Even then of course

an

> > astute observer might point out that any large group of people

is

> going
> > to have *many* wishes, often contradictory, and not just one.
> >
> > But under the current system, the gulf between what
> governments do and
> > what the people they claim jurisdiction over want is vast.
> Virtually
> > all current governments consist of privileged, self-serving and
> > unaccountable subsets of humanity whose actions do not

accurately

> > reflect even the will of a majority, let alone that of the

entire

> > population subject to their bidding.
> >
> > To start with, many people are directly disenfranchised and
> have no
> > voice in the process by which government representatives are
> selected.
> > In the United States this group includes "undocumented"

residents

> who
> > don't have government's permission to be in the area (reportedly
> about
> > 11 million), people incarcerated or on probation or parole for
> various
> > victimless "crimes" or denied the vote for past felonies

(probably

> at
> > least another several million more -- see
> > http://www.halexandria.org/dward267.htm), and people under the

age

> of
> > 18 who would be capable of making voter choices and wish to do

so

> (who
> > knows how many millions). Among those who *are* allowed to vote,
> many
> > (probably at least hundreds of thousands of voters each year)

have

> > their ballots improperly voided, discarded, miscounted, do not
> receive
> > their voting materials, are sent to the wrong polling place,

and so

> > forth due to voter fraud and government incompetence.
> >
> > Those constitute the directly disenfranchised. Then there are
> the
> > indirectly disenfranchised. In the U.S. this includes vast

numbers

> of
> > American adults who live in non-competitive districts which have
> been
> > gerrymandered so that the incumbent is virtually guaranteed
> reelection,
> > with the U.S. Congress (for instance) have a lower turnover rate
> than
> > the old Soviet Politburo, so that they have no actual choice in

who

> > represents them. Some representatives are so secure in their

sense

> of
> > entitlement under the system that they refuse to even debate

their

> > ballot-qualified challengers (e.g. Nancy Pelosi right here

where we

> > live). The indirectly disenfranchised also include many people

who

> vote
> > for alternative candidates and parties, which due to the lack of
> > proportional representation, are denied any seats in legislative
> bodies
> > unless they win a plurality of votes in a particular district,

thus

> > disenfranchising those who supported them.
> >
> > Then there is the "power corrupts" factor. Representatives
> frequently
> > lie to their constituents and win office on false promises, and
> there
> > is no mechanism to prevent them from doing so. They say what

they

> think
> > people want to hear, and then most often do what serves their

own

> > interests or those of their (establishment) political parties or
> their
> > campaign contributors, rather than what reflects the wishes of
> their
> > constituents.
> >
> > Then there is the ignorance factor. Even in cases where
> legislators
> > and elected officials are relatively honest and attempt to vote

as

> > their constituents wish, the people are poorly informed due to

(a)

> > government secrecy, (b) deliberate misinformation by those in
> power,
> > (c) lack of accountability to the public, and (d) the sheer
> > complication and vastness of government. In all likelihood if
> members
> > of the public knew what was really going on, many more of them
> would
> > oppose many aspects of government that they now support. So

their

> > current choices cannot truly be said to be reflective of their

most

> > fundamental wishes.
> >
> > Then there is the unelected bureaucracy factor. Even when
> legislators
> > are honest and attempt to vote as people wish, and the wishes of
> the
> > public are based on relatively complete and accurate information
> about
> > the government decision in question (and honestly, how often are
> both
> > of those things true?), the laws and policies themselves are

left

> to
> > largely unelected bureaucrats. Most of these folks have only

small

> > accountability to the elected leaders, and operate mainly out of
> > self-interest and inertia. Even when they carry out their jobs

and

> > attempt to follow directions diligently, governments are

frequently

> so
> > vast and complex that directives and intentions get

misinterpreted

> as
> > they are passed along to those who are supposed to carry them

out.

> So
> > there is little guarantee that laws and policies will be

enacted by

> the
> > legislators in the ways that the legislators envisioned.
> >
> > Then there is the "unintended consequences" factor. Even when
> (a)
> > legislators are honest and faithful to their constituents, (b)

the

> > constituents are adequately informed, (c) the bureaucrats make a
> good
> > faith attempt to carry out the laws and policies as intended,

and

> (d)
> > these attempts are not stymied by the sheer scope and

complexity of

> it
> > all, the nature of economics and human action is such that
> centrally
> > planned edicts will often have unintended consequences,

sometimes

> > achieving precisely the opposite of the desired effect. In such
> cases
> > it can perhaps be said that the public is in fact responsible.

But

> > whereas an individual or a smaller and less bureaucratic
> organization
> > might be relatively quick to change a policy that was producing
> > unintended and undesired effects, governments are typically very
> slow
> > to do so. Therefore, when government policies continue well

beyond

> the
> > point where it is obvious to most people who study the matters

that

> > they are producing results contrary to their intended purposes,
> such
> > policies can no longer really be said to reflect the wishes of

the

> > public.
> >
> > In conclusion, I think there is no way in hell that we can
> accurately
> > say government reflects the wishes of the people. I think that

to

> say
> > so is to blame the victims.
> >
> > Love & liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > I second Don in thanking you for the article. However, I

cannot

> help
> > > but once again challenge the idea of "the government" being

the

> gun
> > > in the room, sice "the government" is only a reflection

of "the

> > > people's" wish. I had a long discussion today with one of my
> > > clients, who is running for office, and called to run by me

his

> idea
> > > of "mandating" solar panels in each and every home. We are

running

> > > out of oil, right? Our economy is based on oil, right? So,

before

> our
> > > economy collapses....etc. So, multiply this one person

by "x", and

> > > you will have "the government."
> > >
> > > Have fun tomorrow, you all! (I will be at my computer

cranking out

> > > Forms W-2 for my clients, as mandated by "we the people".)
> > >
> > > Marcy
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Edelstein,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for sending the article, "The Gun in the Room."

I've

> read
> > > the article and look forward to the discussion of this

article and

> > > other topics at tomorrow evening's Libertarian Chat.
> > > >
> > > > All the best,
> > > >
> > > > Don Fields
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: dredelstein@
> > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Cc: sfdreamer@; defliberty@
> > > > Sent: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:37 PM
> > > > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Libertarian Chat Friday (1/12/07)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "The Gun in the Room" is a terrific article sent to us by
> Lawrence
> > > Samuels. I'd like to add a discussion of it to the agenda for

our

> > > Libertarian Chat tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html
> > > >
> > > > Best, Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Gun in the Room
> > > > by Stefan Molyneux
> > > > "Put down the gun, then we’ll talk."
> > > > One of the most difficult â€" and essential â€" 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 â€" 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 â€"
> 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 â€" and many more â€"
> 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 â€" all I had to

do

> was
> > > keep saying:
> > > > "The issue is not whether public schools are good or bad,

but

> > > rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without

getting

> > > shot."
> > > > 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 â€" 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

â€"

> just
> > > as she couldn’t care less about my views â€" 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.

> > > > Here’s another example. A listener to my "Freedomain

Radio"

> show
> > > posted the following comment on the message board:
> > > > If you say "Government A doesn’t work," you are really

saying

> > > that the way that individuals in that society are interacting

is

> > > lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum that
> > > address the real debate. This thread’s counterarguments all
> focus
> > > on government vs. free market society. The rules defining a

free

> > > market are all agreed upon interactions at some level, just

as a

> > > government is. Don’t debate that a government is using guns

to

> > > force others, when it’s really individuals with guns,

instead

> show
> > > how the other way will have less guns forcing others or how

those

> > > guns could force others in a more beneficial way.
> > > > I responded in this manner:
> > > > But â€" and I’m sorry if I misunderstand you â€"

government is

> > > force, so I’m not sure how to interpret your paragraph. Let

me

> > > substitute another use of force to show my confusion:
> > > > "If you say that rape doesn’t work you are really saying

that

> the
> > > way that individuals in that society are interacting is

lacking in

> > > some way. There are many threads in this forum that address

the

> real
> > > debate. This thread’s counterarguments all focus on rape vs.
> > > dating. The rules defining dating are all agreed upon
> interactions at
> > > some level, just as rape is. Don’t debate that a group of
> rapists
> > > is forcing others, when it’s really individual rapists,

instead

> > > show how the other way will have fewer rapists forcing others

or

> how
> > > those rapists could force others in a more beneficial way."
> > > > Do you see my confusion?
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > It is a very helpful sign for the future of society that

these

> > > euphemisms exist â€" in fact, I would not believe in the moral
> > > superiority of a stateless society if these euphemisms did not
> exist!
> > > If, every time I pointed out to people that their political
> positions
> > > all required that I get shot or arrested, they just
> growled: "Sure, I
> > > got no problem with that â€" in fact, if you keep disagreeing
> with me
> > > I’m going to shoot you myself!" â€" then, I would find it

very

> hard
> > > to argue for a stateless society!
> > > > In more than 20 years of debating these issues, though,

I’ve

> > > never met a single soul who wants to either shoot me himself

or

> have
> > > someone else shoot me. I take enormous solace in this fact,
> because
> > > it explains exactly why these euphemisms are so essential to

the

> > > maintenance and increase of state power.
> > > > The reason that euphemisms are constantly used to

obscure "the

> gun
> > > in the room" is the simple fact that people don’t like

violence

> > > very much. Most people will do almost anything to avoid a

violent

> > > situation. Even the most bloodthirsty supporter of the Iraq
> invasion
> > > would have a hard time justifying the proposition that

anybody who

> > > opposed the invasion should be shot â€" because it was to

defend

> such
> > > freedoms that Iraq was supposed to have been invaded in the

first

> > > place! But how can I have the right to oppose the invasion of
> Iraq if
> > > I am forced to pay for it through taxation? Surely that is a
> > > ridiculous contradiction, like arguing that a man has a right

to

> free
> > > speech, and also that he should be arrested for speaking his
> mind. If
> > > I have the right to oppose the invasion, surely I cannot be
> forced to
> > > fund it. If I am forced to fund it, then any right I have
> to "oppose"
> > > it is purely imaginary.
> > > > In essence, then, all libertarian arguments come down to one
> > > single, simple statement:
> > > > "Put down the gun, then we’ll talk."
> > > > This is the core morality of both libertarianism and
> civilization.
> > > Civilized people do not shoot each other when they disagree

â€"

> > > decent people do not wave guns in each other’s faces and

demand

> > > submission or blood. Political leaders know this very well

â€" I

> > > would say better than many libertarians do â€" and so

constantly

> > > obscure the violence of their actions and laws with mealy-

mouthed

> and
> > > euphemistic weasel words. Soldiers aren’t murdered,

they "fall."

> > > Iraq wasn’t invaded, but "liberated." Politicians aren’t

our

> > > political masters, they are "civil servants," and so on and

on.

> > > > Although libertarianism is generally considered a radical
> doctrine,
> > > the primary task of the libertarian is to continually

reinforce

> the
> > > basic reality that almost everyone already is a libertarian.

If we

> > > simply keep asking people if they are willing to shoot others

in

> > > order to get their way, we can very quickly convince them that
> > > libertarianism is not an abstract, radical or fringe

philosophy,

> but
> > > rather a simple description of the principles by which they
> already
> > > live their lives. If you get fired, do you think that you

should

> hold
> > > your manager hostage until he gives you back your job? No?

Then

> you
> > > already hold a libertarian position on unions, tariffs, and
> corporate
> > > subsidies. If you find your teenage son in your basement

smoking

> > > marijuana, would you shoot him? No? Then you already hold a
> > > libertarian position on the drug laws. Should those who oppose
> war be
> > > shot for their beliefs? No? Then you already hold a

libertarian

> > > position with regards to taxation.
> > > > Like the scientific method, libertarianism’s greatest
> strength is
> > > its uncompromising simplicity. The enforcement of property

rights

> > > leads to an immensely complex economy, but the morality of
> property
> > > rights is very simple â€" would you shoot a man in order to

steal

> his
> > > property? The same complexity arises from the simple and

universal

> > > application of the non-aggression principle. It’s so easy

to get

> > > lost in the beguiling complexities and forget to keep

enunciating

> the
> > > basic principles.
> > > > So forget about esoteric details. Forget about the history

of

> the
> > > Fed and the economics of the minimum wage. Just keep pointing

out

> the
> > > gun in the room, over and over, until the world finally starts
> awake
> > > and drops it in horror and loathing.
> > > > November 16, 2006
> > > > Stefan Molyneux [send him mail] has been an actor, comedian,
> gold-
> > > panner, graduate student, and software entrepreneur. His first
> novel,
> > > Revolutions was published in 2004, and he maintains a blog.
> Listen to
> > > his podcast, which you can get by clicking here â€" or, you

like

> > > iTunes better, you can click here. For more on DROs, please

see my

> > > archives. He is host of Freedomain Radio.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > __________________________________________________________
> > > __
> > > > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free

safety and

The ultimate originator of the sick-leave mandate (Prop. F on the 2006 ballot) was a group called the Coalition for Paid Sick Days. The measure was put on the ballot by San Francisco Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Chris Daly, Sophie Maxwell and Tom Ammiano. Did the people who voted for these Supervisors do so in the knowledge that they would take this action, or have any confidence that they would take such an action, at the time they voted? Probably not. Someone could have voted for Mirkarimi, Daly, Maxwell, or Ammiano for completely different reasons, as the lesser of two or more evils, and been totally opposed to this particular legislation. I know that was the case with at least one libertarian who voted for Chris Daly.

  Say that you desperately need someone to take care of your house while you go on vacation, and you have the choice of several people to choose for this responsibility, none of whom you completely trust. As it turns out, the person you select ends up trashing your living room. Who is responsible for the damage, you or him? In hindsight you may be guilty of bad judgment, but the person who physically caused the damage is the person responsible. Wouldn't you agree?

  Being "wrongheaded" is not sufficient to make one morally responsible for an action committed by someone else. If we say it is, then we are creating "thought crimes."

Love & liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Interesting viewpoing, Starchild. I may have given this example
before, if so, here it goes again: This is a case one of my clients
worked on a couple of years ago. A rich couple hired a young man to
take care of their house while they were on vacation. While in the
house, the young man overused drugs, grabbed a gun from a night stand
and killed himself. A huge trial ensued to determine who was to blame
for the young man's death -- the owners of the house (they had cause
to know the young man was "unstable" and the gun was not locked
away), the gun manufacturer (they "provided" the weapon), or the
supplier of the drugs (apparently the drugs were a contributing
factor); the young man seemed to have been left out. You are saying
that we should focus on the ones that do the deeds (office holders),
rather than the ones who contribute to the deeds (voters). I will go
along with that! (I do not know what the outcome of the trial was;
so I cannot tell you whether the jury would have agreed with you or
not.)

Marcy
  

  The ultimate originator of the sick-leave mandate (Prop. F on

the 2006

ballot) was a group called the Coalition for Paid Sick Days. The
measure was put on the ballot by San Francisco Supervisors Ross
Mirkarimi, Chris Daly, Sophie Maxwell and Tom Ammiano. Did the

people

who voted for these Supervisors do so in the knowledge that they

would

take this action, or have any confidence that they would take such

an

action, at the time they voted? Probably not. Someone could have

voted

for Mirkarimi, Daly, Maxwell, or Ammiano for completely different
reasons, as the lesser of two or more evils, and been totally

opposed

to this particular legislation. I know that was the case with at

least

one libertarian who voted for Chris Daly.

  Say that you desperately need someone to take care of your

house while

you go on vacation, and you have the choice of several people to

choose

for this responsibility, none of whom you completely trust. As it

turns

out, the person you select ends up trashing your living room. Who

is

responsible for the damage, you or him? In hindsight you may be

guilty

of bad judgment, but the person who physically caused the damage is

the

person responsible. Wouldn't you agree?

  Being "wrongheaded" is not sufficient to make one morally

responsible

for an action committed by someone else. If we say it is, then we

are

creating "thought crimes."

Love & liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

> Hi Starchild,
>
> We are in complete agreement about the virtues of fighting back

from

> a position of calm strength, seeking justice, holding accountable
> those whom we feel have wronged us; and viewed in such light,

these

> actions may not necessarily constitute victimhood (in the sense

that

> I was using the word). Thus, the majority of the residents of San
> Francisco, for example, placed a specific set of Supervisors in

City

> Hall. These elected representatives of the people fought hard to

seek

> justice for the average worker, who starting this February will
> receive mandated sick leave from their employers. Who is the
> ultimate originator of said sick-leave mandate? The government?

The

> Supervisors? The people who elected said Supervisors? Sounds to me
> that the employers are not victims of government wrongdoing, but

of

> their fellow citizens' wrongheadedness!
>
> So, again, I say let us all follow the example of your actions and
> attend City meetings, speak your piece in talk shows, etc.
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> > Hi Marcy,
> >
> > Thanks for your kind words. Perhaps our difference of opinion
> may stem
> > from different senses of what it means to be a "victim?" By
> portraying
> > the people as victims of government, I am not suggesting that

they

> (we)
> > are helpless, merely that they (we) have been (and are being)
> wronged.
> > I believe victims should fight back and seek justice. Not that I
> > automatically oppose sentiments like mercy and empathy, or a
> Gandhian
> > calmness toward oppressors, but it's better if such noble-
> spiritedness
> > comes from a place of strength, not from having no other

options.

> >
> > It seems to me that to say "the oppressive government is us"
> lets
> > those who are actively doing the oppressing off the hook.

Already

> too
> > many State employees are inclined to take the attitude "I'm just
> doing
> > my job." I consider that unacceptable, just as it was at

Nuremberg.

> > Imagine a robber assaulting you and then when caught telling the
> > police, "it's really my family's fault, they wanted me to do

it" --

> no,
> > it's really *your* fault, *you did it*. I believe making

everyone

> > accountable would result in no one being accountable. Kind of a
> tragedy
> > of the moral commons.
> >
> > Love & liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hi Starchild,
> > >
> > > As always, a thoughtful analysis from you. Thank you. My

response

> > > remains, "yes", government does reflect the will of the

people.

> > > Perhaps the essence of our argument exists in your closing
> sentence
> > > regarding blaming the victims. If we see ourselves as

victims, we

> > > will, of course, need disembodied entities such as "the
> government,"
> > > to single out as the cause for our woes. Yes, you are

correct, we

> > > have laws that determine who can and cannot vote; thus, I am
> speaking
> > > of the lawful electorate. Yes, you are correct, we have
> > > the "ignorance" factor; and, I might add, the lazy factor (I

did

> not
> > > get my voting materials in the mail, so I did not know there

was

> an
> > > election going on); thus, the resulting "government"

accurately

> > > reflects these factors. In summary, "Every Nation has the
> government
> > > it deserves."
> > >
> > > BTW, Starchild, I see a disconnect between your words and your
> > > actions. Your analysis seems to be based on victimhood;

whereas

> your
> > > actions are definitely "can do!"(running for office,
> participating in
> > > debates, attending local meetings, speaking out). So, are you
> saying
> > > you can influence events, whereas some cannot?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Marcy
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>

wrote:

> > > >
> > > > Marcy,
> > > >
> > > > If we were living in something approaching a direct
> > > democracy, under a
> > > > small government, where ordinary people literally voted on

all

> > > > significant policies and procedures, I think we might live

in a

> > > society
> > > > where it could be said with some degree of accuracy that
> government
> > > is
> > > > "only a reflection of 'the people's' wish." Even then of

course

> an
> > > > astute observer might point out that any large group of

people

> is
> > > going
> > > > to have *many* wishes, often contradictory, and not just

one.

> > > >
> > > > But under the current system, the gulf between what
> > > governments do and
> > > > what the people they claim jurisdiction over want is vast.
> > > Virtually
> > > > all current governments consist of privileged, self-serving

and

> > > > unaccountable subsets of humanity whose actions do not
> accurately
> > > > reflect even the will of a majority, let alone that of the
> entire
> > > > population subject to their bidding.
> > > >
> > > > To start with, many people are directly disenfranchised and
> > > have no
> > > > voice in the process by which government representatives are
> > > selected.
> > > > In the United States this group includes "undocumented"
> residents
> > > who
> > > > don't have government's permission to be in the area

(reportedly

> > > about
> > > > 11 million), people incarcerated or on probation or parole

for

> > > various
> > > > victimless "crimes" or denied the vote for past felonies
> (probably
> > > at
> > > > least another several million more -- see
> > > > http://www.halexandria.org/dward267.htm), and people under

the

> age
> > > of
> > > > 18 who would be capable of making voter choices and wish to

do

> so
> > > (who
> > > > knows how many millions). Among those who *are* allowed to

vote,

> > > many
> > > > (probably at least hundreds of thousands of voters each

year)

> have
> > > > their ballots improperly voided, discarded, miscounted, do

not

> > > receive
> > > > their voting materials, are sent to the wrong polling place,
> and so
> > > > forth due to voter fraud and government incompetence.
> > > >
> > > > Those constitute the directly disenfranchised. Then there

are

> > > the
> > > > indirectly disenfranchised. In the U.S. this includes vast
> numbers
> > > of
> > > > American adults who live in non-competitive districts which

have

> > > been
> > > > gerrymandered so that the incumbent is virtually guaranteed
> > > reelection,
> > > > with the U.S. Congress (for instance) have a lower turnover

rate

> > > than
> > > > the old Soviet Politburo, so that they have no actual

choice in

> who
> > > > represents them. Some representatives are so secure in their
> sense
> > > of
> > > > entitlement under the system that they refuse to even debate
> their
> > > > ballot-qualified challengers (e.g. Nancy Pelosi right here
> where we
> > > > live). The indirectly disenfranchised also include many

people

> who
> > > vote
> > > > for alternative candidates and parties, which due to the

lack of

> > > > proportional representation, are denied any seats in

legislative

> > > bodies
> > > > unless they win a plurality of votes in a particular

district,

> thus
> > > > disenfranchising those who supported them.
> > > >
> > > > Then there is the "power corrupts" factor. Representatives
> > > frequently
> > > > lie to their constituents and win office on false promises,

and

> > > there
> > > > is no mechanism to prevent them from doing so. They say what
> they
> > > think
> > > > people want to hear, and then most often do what serves

their

> own
> > > > interests or those of their (establishment) political

parties or

> > > their
> > > > campaign contributors, rather than what reflects the wishes

of

> > > their
> > > > constituents.
> > > >
> > > > Then there is the ignorance factor. Even in cases where
> > > legislators
> > > > and elected officials are relatively honest and attempt to

vote

> as
> > > > their constituents wish, the people are poorly informed due

to

> (a)
> > > > government secrecy, (b) deliberate misinformation by those

in

> > > power,
> > > > (c) lack of accountability to the public, and (d) the sheer
> > > > complication and vastness of government. In all likelihood

if

> > > members
> > > > of the public knew what was really going on, many more of

them

> > > would
> > > > oppose many aspects of government that they now support. So
> their
> > > > current choices cannot truly be said to be reflective of

their

> most
> > > > fundamental wishes.
> > > >
> > > > Then there is the unelected bureaucracy factor. Even when
> > > legislators
> > > > are honest and attempt to vote as people wish, and the

wishes of

> > > the
> > > > public are based on relatively complete and accurate

information

> > > about
> > > > the government decision in question (and honestly, how

often are

> > > both
> > > > of those things true?), the laws and policies themselves are
> left
> > > to
> > > > largely unelected bureaucrats. Most of these folks have only
> small
> > > > accountability to the elected leaders, and operate mainly

out of

> > > > self-interest and inertia. Even when they carry out their

jobs

> and
> > > > attempt to follow directions diligently, governments are
> frequently
> > > so
> > > > vast and complex that directives and intentions get
> misinterpreted
> > > as
> > > > they are passed along to those who are supposed to carry

them

> out.
> > > So
> > > > there is little guarantee that laws and policies will be
> enacted by
> > > the
> > > > legislators in the ways that the legislators envisioned.
> > > >
> > > > Then there is the "unintended consequences" factor. Even

when

> > > (a)
> > > > legislators are honest and faithful to their constituents,

(b)

> the
> > > > constituents are adequately informed, (c) the bureaucrats

make a

> > > good
> > > > faith attempt to carry out the laws and policies as

intended,

> and
> > > (d)
> > > > these attempts are not stymied by the sheer scope and
> complexity of
> > > it
> > > > all, the nature of economics and human action is such that
> > > centrally
> > > > planned edicts will often have unintended consequences,
> sometimes
> > > > achieving precisely the opposite of the desired effect. In

such

> > > cases
> > > > it can perhaps be said that the public is in fact

responsible.

> But
> > > > whereas an individual or a smaller and less bureaucratic
> > > organization
> > > > might be relatively quick to change a policy that was

producing

> > > > unintended and undesired effects, governments are typically

very

> > > slow
> > > > to do so. Therefore, when government policies continue well
> beyond
> > > the
> > > > point where it is obvious to most people who study the

matters

> that
> > > > they are producing results contrary to their intended

purposes,

> > > such
> > > > policies can no longer really be said to reflect the wishes

of

> the
> > > > public.
> > > >
> > > > In conclusion, I think there is no way in hell that we can
> > > accurately
> > > > say government reflects the wishes of the people. I think

that

> to
> > > say
> > > > so is to blame the victims.
> > > >
> > > > Love & liberty,
> > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > > I second Don in thanking you for the article. However, I
> cannot
> > > help
> > > > > but once again challenge the idea of "the government"

being

> the
> > > gun
> > > > > in the room, sice "the government" is only a reflection
> of "the
> > > > > people's" wish. I had a long discussion today with one of

my

> > > > > clients, who is running for office, and called to run by

me

> his
> > > idea
> > > > > of "mandating" solar panels in each and every home. We are
> running
> > > > > out of oil, right? Our economy is based on oil, right? So,
> before
> > > our
> > > > > economy collapses....etc. So, multiply this one person
> by "x", and
> > > > > you will have "the government."
> > > > >
> > > > > Have fun tomorrow, you all! (I will be at my computer
> cranking out
> > > > > Forms W-2 for my clients, as mandated by "we the people".)
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcy
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@...m, defliberty@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. Edelstein,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for sending the article, "The Gun in the

Room."

> I've
> > > read
> > > > > the article and look forward to the discussion of this
> article and
> > > > > other topics at tomorrow evening's Libertarian Chat.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don Fields
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: dredelstein@
> > > > > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Cc: sfdreamer@; defliberty@
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:37 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Libertarian Chat Friday

(1/12/07)

> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Gun in the Room" is a terrific article sent to us

by

> > > Lawrence
> > > > > Samuels. I'd like to add a discussion of it to the agenda

for

> our
> > > > > Libertarian Chat tomorrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best, Michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Gun in the Room
> > > > > > by Stefan Molyneux
> > > > > > "Put down the gun, then we’ll talk."
> > > > > > One of the most difficult â€" and essential â€"

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 â€" 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

â€"

> > > 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 â€" and many more

â€"

> > > 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 â€" all I

had to

> do
> > > was
> > > > > keep saying:
> > > > > > "The issue is not whether public schools are good or

bad,

> but
> > > > > rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without
> getting
> > > > > shot."
> > > > > > 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 â€" 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

> â€"
> > > just
> > > > > as she couldn’t care less about my views â€" 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.
> > > > > > Here’s another example. A listener to my "Freedomain
> Radio"
> > > show
> > > > > posted the following comment on the message board:
> > > > > > If you say "Government A doesn’t work," you are really
> saying
> > > > > that the way that individuals in that society are

interacting

> is
> > > > > lacking in some way. There are many threads in this forum

that

> > > > > address the real debate. This thread’s counterarguments

all

> > > focus
> > > > > on government vs. free market society. The rules defining

a

> free
> > > > > market are all agreed upon interactions at some level,

just

> as a
> > > > > government is. Don’t debate that a government is using

guns

> to
> > > > > force others, when it’s really individuals with guns,
> instead
> > > show
> > > > > how the other way will have less guns forcing others or

how

> those
> > > > > guns could force others in a more beneficial way.
> > > > > > I responded in this manner:
> > > > > > But â€" and I’m sorry if I misunderstand you â€"
> government is
> > > > > force, so I’m not sure how to interpret your paragraph.

Let

> me
> > > > > substitute another use of force to show my confusion:
> > > > > > "If you say that rape doesn’t work you are really

saying

> that
> > > the
> > > > > way that individuals in that society are interacting is
> lacking in
> > > > > some way. There are many threads in this forum that

address

> the
> > > real
> > > > > debate. This thread’s counterarguments all focus on

rape vs.

> > > > > dating. The rules defining dating are all agreed upon
> > > interactions at
> > > > > some level, just as rape is. Don’t debate that a group

of

> > > rapists
> > > > > is forcing others, when it’s really individual rapists,
> instead
> > > > > show how the other way will have fewer rapists forcing

others

> or
> > > how
> > > > > those rapists could force others in a more beneficial

way."

> > > > > > Do you see my confusion?
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > It is a very helpful sign for the future of society that
> these
> > > > > euphemisms exist â€" in fact, I would not believe in the

moral

> > > > > superiority of a stateless society if these euphemisms

did not

> > > exist!
> > > > > If, every time I pointed out to people that their

political

> > > positions
> > > > > all required that I get shot or arrested, they just
> > > growled: "Sure, I
> > > > > got no problem with that â€" in fact, if you keep

disagreeing

> > > with me
> > > > > I’m going to shoot you myself!" â€" then, I would find

it

> very
> > > hard
> > > > > to argue for a stateless society!
> > > > > > In more than 20 years of debating these issues, though,
> I’ve
> > > > > never met a single soul who wants to either shoot me

himself

> or
> > > have
> > > > > someone else shoot me. I take enormous solace in this

fact,

> > > because
> > > > > it explains exactly why these euphemisms are so essential

to

> the
> > > > > maintenance and increase of state power.
> > > > > > The reason that euphemisms are constantly used to
> obscure "the
> > > gun
> > > > > in the room" is the simple fact that people don’t like
> violence
> > > > > very much. Most people will do almost anything to avoid a
> violent
> > > > > situation. Even the most bloodthirsty supporter of the

Iraq

> > > invasion
> > > > > would have a hard time justifying the proposition that
> anybody who
> > > > > opposed the invasion should be shot â€" because it was to
> defend
> > > such
> > > > > freedoms that Iraq was supposed to have been invaded in

the

> first
> > > > > place! But how can I have the right to oppose the

invasion of

> > > Iraq if
> > > > > I am forced to pay for it through taxation? Surely that

is a

> > > > > ridiculous contradiction, like arguing that a man has a

right

> to
> > > free
> > > > > speech, and also that he should be arrested for speaking

his

> > > mind. If
> > > > > I have the right to oppose the invasion, surely I cannot

be

> > > forced to
> > > > > fund it. If I am forced to fund it, then any right I have
> > > to "oppose"
> > > > > it is purely imaginary.
> > > > > > In essence, then, all libertarian arguments come down

to one

> > > > > single, simple statement:
> > > > > > "Put down the gun, then we’ll talk."
> > > > > > This is the core morality of both libertarianism and
> > > civilization.
> > > > > Civilized people do not shoot each other when they

disagree

> â€"
> > > > > decent people do not wave guns in each other’s faces and
> demand
> > > > > submission or blood. Political leaders know this very well
> â€" I
> > > > > would say better than many libertarians do â€" and so
> constantly
> > > > > obscure the violence of their actions and laws with mealy-
> mouthed
> > > and
> > > > > euphemistic weasel words. Soldiers aren’t murdered,
> they "fall."
> > > > > Iraq wasn’t invaded, but "liberated." Politicians

aren’t

> our
> > > > > political masters, they are "civil servants," and so on

and

> on.
> > > > > > Although libertarianism is generally considered a

radical

> > > doctrine,
> > > > > the primary task of the libertarian is to continually
> reinforce
> > > the
> > > > > basic reality that almost everyone already is a

libertarian.

> If we
> > > > > simply keep asking people if they are willing to shoot

others

> in
> > > > > order to get their way, we can very quickly convince them

that

> > > > > libertarianism is not an abstract, radical or fringe
> philosophy,
> > > but
> > > > > rather a simple description of the principles by which

they

> > > already
> > > > > live their lives. If you get fired, do you think that you
> should
> > > hold
> > > > > your manager hostage until he gives you back your job? No?
> Then
> > > you
> > > > > already hold a libertarian position on unions, tariffs,

and

> > > corporate
> > > > > subsidies. If you find your teenage son in your basement
> smoking
> > > > > marijuana, would you shoot him? No? Then you already hold

a

> > > > > libertarian position on the drug laws. Should those who

oppose

> > > war be
> > > > > shot for their beliefs? No? Then you already hold a
> libertarian
> > > > > position with regards to taxation.
> > > > > > Like the scientific method, libertarianism’s greatest
> > > strength is
> > > > > its uncompromising simplicity. The enforcement of property
> rights
> > > > > leads to an immensely complex economy, but the morality of
> > > property
> > > > > rights is very simple â€" would you shoot a man in order

to

> steal
> > > his
> > > > > property? The same complexity arises from the simple and
> universal
> > > > > application of the non-aggression principle. It’s so

easy

> to get
> > > > > lost in the beguiling complexities and forget to keep
> enunciating
> > > the
> > > > > basic principles.
> > > > > > So forget about esoteric details. Forget about the

history

> of
> > > the
> > > > > Fed and the economics of the minimum wage. Just keep

pointing

> out
> > > the
> > > > > gun in the room, over and over, until the world finally

starts

> > > awake
> > > > > and drops it in horror and loathing.
> > > > > > November 16, 2006
> > > > > > Stefan Molyneux [send him mail] has been an actor,

comedian,

> > > gold-
> > > > > panner, graduate student, and software entrepreneur. His

first

> > > novel,
> > > > > Revolutions was published in 2004, and he maintains a

blog.

> > > Listen to
> > > > > his podcast, which you can get by clicking here â€" or,

you

> like
> > > > > iTunes better, you can click here. For more on DROs,

please

> see my
> > > > > archives. He is host of Freedomain Radio.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________
> > > > > __
> > > > > > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free
> safety and
> > > > > security tools, free access to millions of high-quality

videos