Often the statist will conclude with both parties will just have to agree to disagree or similar after a drawn out debate where their defense of the state and harm against peaceful individuals has been found wanting. The problem with this seemingly congenial note is that it assumes the discussion was a mere difference of opinion—as though those who oppose violence against peaceful people are on equal moral, economic, and logical footing as those who favor mass organized extortion and enslavement of millions. The existence of government, and more generically, all initiated violence and threats, is necessarily immoral; and there is no moral equivalence between doing such harm and refraining from it. Attempting to whitewash the discussion as if both were the same and thus both disputants were morally equivalent is dishonest. If agreeing to disagree is your goal then that still means you must accept voluntaryism, because it alone allows for me to disagree with you without harm, whereas the government solutions of the statist gives me no say and are imposed by force. If this reasoning were applied to battery, it would not be considered acceptable: Oh, you dont want me to beat you? But I do want to beat you! I guess well just have to agree to disagree… while I beat you to death, of course. h/t Voluntaryist Wiki
Posted on: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:01:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015