One of the biggest challenges that libertarians face is making abstractions relatable using personal and emotional arguments. Sayings like “Taxation is theft”, “audit the fed”, and “don’t violate the NAP” are used quite often, but to the outside audience, these sayings carry little significance. The left does an excellent job of taking abstractions and making them personal and emotional. Immigration policy is turned into pictures of caged and crying children, foreign policy is turned into pictures of refugee children with traumatic injuries, social welfare programs turn into pictures of a single mom crying about how tough it is to feed her children. The fact is that when most people make decisions, they are generally made on an emotional basis, and the left knows this.
If giving people a copy of Ludwig Von Mises’ ‘Human Action’ doesn’t turn them into red-blooded liberty loving anarcho-capitalists, what will? That’s where the ‘against me’ argument comes in. The ‘Against Me’ argument does a great job of taking the abstraction of government funded programs, laws, and policies and turns them into the equivalent of crying kids in cages. The primary thesis of the argument is a question: “Do you support the use of force against me?”
Here’s how such a discussion could go in a conversation with someone who believes in heavy-handed government:
Friend: “I support the government because I enjoy living in a civilized society. I appreciate the ability to participate in government through democracy and I enjoy living in a country that has rule of law. I’m grateful that we are able to organize and provide roads to drive on, social safety nets to protect citizens who are down on their luck, a military to protect us, and police and fire departments to keep us safe.”
Libertarian: “Very interesting! Let’s take one of these policies and focus on it. Do you support public libraries?”
Friend: “Of course, public libraries are a valuable investment in public education and they enrich our community.”
Libertarian: “I’m glad you think so. I happen to disagree. I think that libraries are quite outdated and underused because now there are more efficient ways of getting information and learning about numerous topics. However, I would never even consider using force against you to prevent you from supporting libraries. If you want to write a check and send it to the library, more power to you! Will you extend that same respect to me for my lack of support?”
Friend: “Well, of course I would never support the use of force against you, but the funding of libraries is not done forcefully. You make it sound like the government is mugging you on the street corner and taking cash from your wallet to fund the library. We have a system of taxation and it’s important that everyone pays their fair share.”
Libertarian: “Well Friend, what happens if I refuse to pay my taxes?”
Friend: “They would send you a letter and then maybe a fine?”
Libertarian: “And if I ignore the letter and neglect to pay the fine?”
Friend: “Well, I’m not sure. I suppose they could go to collections or imprison you.
Libertarian: “Here’s what can happen, as per the IRS website: 1) File a notice of a federal tax lien (a claim to your property). 2) Seize your property. 3) File charges for tax evasion. 4) Revoke your passport. These are just some of the many consequences that can accrue if you fail/refuse to pay taxes. So, I ask you again, my friend. If I do not believe in funding a library, do you support these things happening to me?
Your friend can go one of two ways from here. They could double down and say “yes, I do support the use of force against you.” If that happens, would you really want a friend who feels that way about you? If they agree that force should not be used against you to fund the library, then you just planted the seed of liberty within their mind. Congratulations!
I think that it’s important to note that this argument is very volatile, but that’s the point. If someone does end up saying they support the use of force against you (and someone has said that to me before) then that relationship is severely jeopardized. One of the biggest reasons that evil occurs is because people do not view it as evil. The German soldiers who conducted mass murder during the holocaust did not view it as mass murder. They viewed it as “purifying the German race,” and “just following orders.” The ‘against me’ argument puts talcum powder on the invisible guns of the state, and helps people realize the violence of government institutions.
This article was directly inspired from Stefan Molyneux's speech at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views held by The Liberty Block or any of its contributors or members.
留言