Is statism evil? Absolutely, positively, and unexceptionably. As an anarcho-capitalist, I would go so far as to argue any state itself is intrinsically evil.
But I reserve a considerable amount of sympathy for the run-of-the-mill individual statist, certainly more than most of the libertarian folks on LewRockwell.com. By this, I don’t mean the narcissistic creeps running the government itself, but regular folks who don't think much about politics, or if they do, don't have the time or inclination to think outside of the carefully crafted MSNBC, NY Times, FOX News, Washington Post bubble.
If you'll excuse the personal note, my "story" is a big reason why I feel this way. I had the luxury of growing up with wonderful intellectual and moral influences. My grandfather, a top-flight architect working for the Egyptian government, saw the corruption and lies of the Egyptian state firsthand. My mother, the person whom I admire most, learned to despise war from an early age from her childhood memories of the Six-Day War. My father, born in a Nebraska farming town, meshes a strong work ethic and beautiful sense of compassion for all individuals similar to the "bleeding heart" free-market defense made by the gentle Ron Paul. All of these individuals contributed to my perception of liberty in their own unique way.
Yet despite all my advantages, I was unable to accept a consistent package of liberty for much of my teenage years. Indeed, I almost made a grave mistake that proved the depth of my ideological confusion.
Today, I am proud to call myself a libertarian anarchist, and feel no reservation or intellectual hesitancy in speaking out radically and unequivocally on behalf of this position. But my past experience reminds me (and I hope, all of you) that we should seek to convert, rather than personally condemn, those who haven't yet come to liberty -- even as we remind them that their political activity is wrong, confused, and acquiescing to great evil.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
Great post, Matt. I like your emphasis on seeking to convert rather than simply condemning. It's a lesson I'd say devotees of just about every philosophy could learn (I certainly would like to see more of it in American Christianity, for example): far more productive, reasonable, and pleasant for all involved.
I must whole heartedly agree to what Matt said. I see many a libertarian attack a curious person who is genuinely interested in our thoughts and beliefs, usually winding up with the person more inclined to think, "so now I finally understand why we have government... to protect me from crazies like this!" It's not fair to the rest of us who ARE working hard to bring people into the fold. Also as Bonnie pointed out, other groups could take this advice to heart as well, Christians also first in my mind.
Great post. I would love to hear more personal anecdotes from YAlLbloggers, I think they are an excellent means of bringing compassion and feeling to the cause. Sometimes rational and logical arguments simply aren't enough, posts like this exemplify the humanity of liberty.
Bonnie- Although the moral rejection of harming innocent people as means to an end (natural disasters) leads me to atheism, I admire religious sentiment all the same. (I still pray out of habit and consider myself catholic in a weird, pseudo spiritual sense) I think voluntary religion would be a completely positive thing in a libertarian society, though the state perverts it to some degree today.
Bonnie/Bryce/John- Thanks for the kind words.
Matt,
I enjoyed your story and your conclusion that we should convert, not condemn. It reminds me of Martin luther King, Jr.'s attempts at peaceful revolution in the 60's civil rights era. Instead of attacking his oppressors or those who were middle-of-the-road and didn't really care about Civil Rights either way ( he considered these people the most dangerous), he made peaceful protests and won the admiration of his oppressors with his temperance.
Despite your call for conversion (as Martin Luther King Jr. strived for) over condemnation (the more Malcolm-X / Black Panther approach), I find that this site does quite a bit of condemning - including personal insults on those you purport to want to convert. The common theme in your specific threads revolves around insulting every aspect of the military (which I generally find ok, being an anti-statist myself), but then you go on to insult those who serve in it. ( http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/a-global-force-for-good#comments )
How can you hope to convert anyone after calling them "murderous" and "parasitical" ? Just curious.
I would like to add that I think a lot of the problem has to do with the tone of the posts / posters. For example, the way you worded this particular post was good in that you essentially said, "I wouldn't join the military because I would feel guilty for essentially condoning / abetting /aiding in murder"
...as opposed to...
"soldiers are murderers"
The first is bound to turn away potential converts, while the second would serve to have tose potential converts think about and reconsider their current beliefs.
Equal-
First off, thanks for your comment. Because it was polite and well written, it definitely merits a lengthy response.
"even as we remind them that their political activity is wrong, confused, and acquiescing to great evil."
That is the caveat. I don't believe I have ever personally attacked the intelligence or morals of average people serving in the Imperial Army. The terms "parasitical" and "murderous" were clearly used to describe the institution as a whole in the thread you link to. I don't think that's the same as blanket personal condemnation, but if I were a soldier, I probably would take it that way because self-interest tends to guide people-- even more than the truth.
But human emotion aside, I view your inference as logically faulty. Is it a personal attack on women who've had abortions to call abortion murder? Is it a personal attack on policemen and judges to call jailing of draft resisters kidnapping?
Basically, You either believe it's murder to act with intent and kill innocent people, you don't believe it's murder because the US government does it, (for consequentialist motives or w/e) or you're too wussy to say it's murder. I fall in the first category. I have more respect for the 2nd than the third, but there's far too many libertarian types in the third, imo.
Whether you like the logic or not, if you call abortion murder, a woman who has had an abortion will have felt personally attacked (because you are essentially implying that she has committed murder). That's pretty obvious. It's not about being "too wussy", its about the presentation of your argument, and what you hope to achieve by making a statement like that.
If all you care about is speaking the truth, fine. If you hope to gather new followers to the liberty movement, which is the purpose of this thread, then you have to be more tactful and more clever. That's just the way it is.
There's a clear difference between not saying something at all, (which is tactful) and saying something that you don't believe. (which is wussy.)
As for me, I feel as if the unapologetic truth is far more effective at persuading others. I don't think wishy washy cliches' would've persuaded me to forfeit my path-- it took Laurence Vance, Tom Woods, and other radical libertarians. You're entitled to disagree, but I believe truthtelling is the more virtuous path either way.
You can tell the "unapologetic truth" tactfully - which is what you have done in your post, by telling your story and the lessons you have learned from your experience. Doing this will allow others to examine their own lives and beliefs without you doing it for them.
What I am saying is that this site should avoid attacking the people they hope to convert - which is a tactic I have noticed a number of times in various posts (and not necessarily posts by those who run the site, but those who visit it also).
yo. i luv malcom x.