the unreachable dead

libertarianism market anarchy2 Comments on the unreachable dead

the unreachable dead

one of the best things about facebook is the insight it gives into the mindsets of people. in michael cloud’s book, “the art of persuasion”, he references those whose minds are totally closed to any type of argument outside of their accepted beliefs and that these people are a waste of time in persuasive discourse.

recently, i was discussing the ideas surrounding the state, taxation and society with a friend on facebook. he had obviously never heard the argument from market anarchism and displayed the usual concerns regarding the “necessity” of the state. of course, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that and, to his credit, he was open to exploring some new ideas. unfortunately, joining the discussion, was a member of that class of individual i call “the unreachable dead”. this person is one who is so propagandized, so lacking in the tools of critical thought and so clearly attached to expressed ideas in a purely emotional manner, that there is virtually no chance of ever shining the light of reason inside their moldering cranial husks.

the context of the discussion was one of the necessity of the state and, consequently, taxation, when the person in question uttered this pathetic statement:

(my friend’s name here) – great thinking! every time I am in DC, I am thankful that our founding fathers were so committed to our country that they made sure our government’s buildings were the best and that they would stand the test of time.

If many people today were building Washington and our schools, everything would be in a metal building that would collapse in a few years – then the whole thing would have to be done again.

I agree with Andrew that our country is worth my paying taxes. It helps us all have a better society.

i had no response to this, as i don’t take the ramblings of the “dead” seriously in any way and don’t feel the need (after learning the hard way that it’s futile, anyway) to point out the statement’s ridiculousness. it generally serves no purpose other than to waste my time and to anger the “UD”. there’s little point in that.

because the statement may sound reasonable to many, i will take the time to point out the fallacies and errors in this short quote (i don’t have to worry that the UD will ever bother reading this or become angered by it):

1) the UD is caught up in the fallacy of the collective. she refers to “our founding fathers”, as if they founded you, me or anything that i consider valuable. she refers to “our country” as if the land inside of the imaginary boundaries of the territory dominated by the u.s. government somehow belongs to a group called “us” that supersedes all privately held land somehow without giving its owners – “us” – the ability to sell our share if we so please, or even pointing out our share of the “country” on a map.

2) the so-called founding fathers didn’t build the vast majority of the buildings in washington d.c.

3) the idea that buildings today would be poorly constructed is out of touch with reality. simply looking at any modern monument to the state reveals the same lack of regard for expense and extravagance as any constructed by an entity with the power to take money and land away from citizens by force, at will, and without consequence. she doesn’t understand the difference between structures built with the purpose of aggrandizing the power of the state and those built to service the serfs.

4) she states that her country (i guess she owns one?) is worth paying taxes for. ok, great! go ahead and pay whatever money you want to pay! as long as your government stays away from me, we won’t have any problems. but, of course, that isn’t the implication. it isn’t a question of voluntarism. she wants me to also be forced to pay for her precious criminal gang.

5) it helps us all have a better society? can she explain to me how massive-scale criminal activity gives us a “better” society? and what does she mean by “better”? it’s better to be saddled by injustice and tyranny, rather than have functioning society where no one is forced to do anything against their will by systematic institutions?

pretty sad, factually wrong, philosophically bankrupt and fundamentally naive. really though, i feel sorry for those suspended in this state of intellectual ineptitude. they will never understand reality and be forever locked away from the gifts of mind-expansion.

hopefully, for them, the bliss of ignorance outweighs the benefits of philosophical revelation.

Conceptual logician, libertarian philosopher, musician, economist, almost-ran businessman and other stuff.

2 thoughts on “the unreachable dead

  1. Well, this was in 2009 so maybe "she" wasn't me.

    Am I "the unreachable dead"?

    I would hate to think I was "philosophically bankrupt and fundamentally naive." And "suspended in this state of intellectual ineptitude."

    I know I can be emotional but truth and logic should disprove emotional arguments everytime. I would hope I would not be "the unreachable dead".

  2. the fact that you're reading this stuff and not making the "2+2=5, dammit!" arguments that the UD commonly make is a good sign that you're not one of them.

    intellectual honesty, open-mindedness and critical thought will ensure that one doesn't fall under the "UD" heading.

    just realized i need to make some corrections in that post as i reread it!

Comments are closed.

Back To Top