Marcy,
I'll add your topic to the agenda: "We are the oppressive state and the oppressive state is us."
Thanks for the suggestion.
Best, Michael
Hi Michael,
Love your paraphrazing of the issue!! Thank you. I am emboldened to
add "If not us, then who?"
: - ))
Marcy,
I'll add your topic to the agenda: "We are the oppressive state and
the oppressive state is us."
Thanks for the suggestion.
Best, Michael
From: Amarcy D. Berry
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:56 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Libertarian Chat Friday (1/12/07)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 weâ?Tll 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 donâ?Tt get
into violent debates about which restaurant is best because the
state
doesnâ?Tt impose one restaurant on everyone â?" and shoot those
trying to set up competing restaurants. The truth is that I
couldnâ?Tt care less about this womanâ?Ts views on education â?"
just
as she couldnâ?Tt 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 werenâ?Tt going to get anywhere.
> Hereâ?Ts another example. A listener to my "Freedomain Radio"
show
posted the following comment on the message board:
> If you say "Government A doesnâ?Tt 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 threadâ?Ts 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. Donâ?Tt debate that a government is using guns to
force others, when itâ?Ts 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 Iâ?Tm sorry if I misunderstand you â?" government is
force, so Iâ?Tm not sure how to interpret your paragraph. Let me
substitute another use of force to show my confusion:
> "If you say that rape doesnâ?Tt 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 threadâ?Ts counterarguments all focus on rape vs.
dating. The rules defining dating are all agreed upon interactions
at
some level, just as rape is. Donâ?Tt debate that a group of rapists
is forcing others, when itâ?Ts 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
Iâ?Tm 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, Iâ?Tve
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 donâ?Tt 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 weâ?Tll 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 otherâ?Ts 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 arenâ?Tt murdered, they "fall."
Iraq wasnâ?Tt invaded, but "liberated." Politicians arenâ?Tt 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, libertarianismâ?Ts 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. Itâ?Ts 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