jayheartless asked: I really hope you're not going to find my question banal, but this is the last place I can pose such a question. You see, I'm an atheist, humanist and an anarchist. I am raised by a very loving mother and father, both quite the critical thinkers when it comes to race, gender and religion but somehow coming out as an anarchist outraged them. Anytime I try to explain why and how, what's wrong with the state... They act like I'm evil? How should I go about it?
First off, you might have to live with the fact that you will never change their minds. If you love them, then you might have to respect there right to believe what they believe.
Secondly, your parents sound like they follow the progressivism mindset. Which means that they believe in equality between race, gender, and religion or lack there of through government intervention.
I personally follow the Non-Aggression Principles. Which really only means that I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to initiate violence on to anyone else. It does not mean pacifism, you are allowed to protect yourself, but not INITIATE force, or ask anyone to initiate force on your behalf. To create this change, we do not believe in revolutions, or overthrowing anyone, but in raising social awareness to the violence that no one apparently sees, and raising the moral standard in society.
If people can see the violence then they will not condone the violence.
Aristotle, came up with the Law of Identity, which boils down to A is A, so A cannot equal B, or C
So from this, if theft is bad, then theft cannot equal virtue.
Taxation is theft, so taxation cannot equal virtue.
Kidnapping is bad, so how can kidnapping equal virtue
If violence or hitting is bad, then how can war equal virtue?
How we create this moral exception to the rule is what George Orwell called Double Think. In which he said, and I quote: The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
Stefan Molyneux, said this: In order for us to accept such madness, the wheels of our minds must first be broken by indoctrination. By government schools.
Ethics, virtue, morality — these were not invented and inflicted from any desire to spread goodness, but rather to disarm and enslave others. To disarm and enslave you.
The sequence is always the same — invent a universal standard of good behavior, and then create an invisible exception for yourself and your friends, by calling it something else.
“THOU SHALT NOT STEAL!” — Ok, all right, theft is wrong! Thus those in power have to call their theft “taxation.”
“THOU SHALT NOT KILL!” — Ok, all right, murder is wrong! Thus those in power have to call their murders “wars.”
“NO KIDNAPPING!” — Ok, all right, kidnapping is wrong! Thus those in power have to call their kidnappings “incarceration.”
“VIOLENCE IS WRONG!” — Ok, all right, using violence to get what you want is wrong! Thus those in power have to call their violence “spanking” or “laws.”
Do you see the pattern? Create a universal moral rule, and then create an exception for yourself, and your friends.
It’s very easy to test this theory. Walk-up to an average citizen and ask him if using violence to solve problems is good. He will say, “no.” Point out that the State initiates force all the time in the pretense of solving problems. He will immediately start to defend the State.
It is inevitable. People defend moral rules, and then defend the most blatant violations of these same moral rules.
This how we are controlled. This is how we are propagandized.
So we learned from an early age that violence is wrong, unless the state does it.
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.
It’s hard to let go of our addiction to state violence, because most of us grew up not to see it, not to notice what they the government does is violence, yes we know war might be bad, but the government is trying to gain virtue through coercion.
Would your parents point a gun to your head, to stop you from your beliefs? I am reaching here, but I would say no, if that is true then they too do not believe that initiating violence against you is wrong. People just have to see the state for what it is. But in saying that, most will never see things the way you do, and you might not be able to reach common ground. But if they love you, then stick to your beliefs, and maybe in time, months years decades, they will start to see the violence of the state.
Friedrich Nietzsche once said:
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”