Statists will try to refute moral principles using outlandish scenarios. But they never subject their own proposals to the same standard. They want the net down when they’re serving and the net up while you’re serving. You can thwart this double-standard using…
The Golden Rule of Ideas: Treat your own ideas the same way you treat opposing concepts.
Hold statists to this fair and empathetic standard. For example…
- The statist says, “What if people won’t voluntarily shelter homeless people?”
- You reply, “What if politicians tax people to house the homeless but they remain homeless?”
When the statist judges your Zero Aggression proposals in a certain way, apply the same standard to the statist idea. Better yet, lead by example. Say things like…
- “I will not force you to own a gun just because I have studies showing that more gun ownership leads to less crime.”
- “I will not force you to fund my favorite charities, even though I think these organizations are the best way to help those in need.”
Treat other peoples’ ideas the way you want your ideas to be treated, and accept no less from others.
Does this way of thinking intrigue you? Want to learn more or participate in creating such a society? Then join the Zero Aggression Project using this subscription form…
That’s quite a breakthrough in the social psychology of Statism. Those of us who were active during the Bush-Clinton years vividly remember how people were pushed away from voting for people who held particular ideals, and pulled toward voting for pragmatists, who promised to “get stuff done”. The net result is that Statism got done. We’re now vastly deeper in debt, entangled in ongoing warfare, and no closer at all to any consensus about what’s right and what’s wrong.
If we enact statutes and wage wars against people, but do not take the trouble to be absolutely sure that we are doing the right thing, what that says about us, is that we’d rather do wrongful things, than simply do nothing.
If that’s what Pragmatism promised to achieve, by “getting stuff done”, it was a poor choice to vote for more of if.