25 Statist Propaganda Phrases (And How To Rebut Them)

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/14/2015 22:15 -0400

Submitted by Matthew Reece via Liberty.me blog,

In the discourse of statists, there is a group of phrases of which one or more tend
to be present in nearly every argument.
While this is not an exhaustive listing of that group, it does contain twenty-five of the most
common phrases that statists use in their arguments. As propaganda has a tendency to
be repetitive, some of these phrases contain the same logical fallacies, and will
therefore have similar refutations. As such, the phrases are ordered so that earlier
rebuttals also apply to some later phrases.
1. Our government
Our is the possessive form of we. This phrase assumes that a collective exists and has
ownership of the government, which is another collective. To exist is to have a concrete,
particular form in physical reality. To say that abstract objects exist is to beg the question of
where they exist, to which there is no answer because there is no empirically observable
entity. To say that collectives exist is beg the question of what physical form they take, as
all available physical forms are occupied by the individuals which are said to comprise the
collective. Thus, there is no we; there is only you, I, and every other individual person. By
the same token, the government does not exist; each person, each building, each gun, etc.
exists. As such, the phrase our government is meaningless. Additionally, to own
something is to have a right of exclusive control over it. Part and parcel of this right is the
right to physically destroy that which one owns. As governments use force to stop citizens
who attempt to physically destroy the state, the citizens are not the de facto owners of a
government.
2. We are the government
This phrase confuses society with government, which is as serious an error as confusing an
entire human body with a malignant tumor growing inside of that body.
3. The social contract
A valid contract must be presented honestly and agreed to voluntarily, without duress or
fraud. The social contract does not meet this standard because the state will initiate the use
of force against anyone who does not voluntarily enter into the social contract. The state is
also not automatically dissolved when it fails to uphold its obligations under the social

contract, so the presentation is dishonest if it even occurs at all. Therefore, the social
contract cannot be considered a legitimate contract.
4. Our leader
In the case of the state, we are not speaking of just any kind of leader, but a ruler. No one
owns the ruler, and the ruler falsely claims to own those who are ruled, as the ruler claims a
right to exclusive control over the ruled and has no logically defensible basis for doing so.
Thus the leader is not ours.
5. The leader of the free world
The free world does not exist; each individual person exists. Again, we are speaking of
rulers rather than all types of leaders. Free people do not have rulers; they rule themselves.
6. You dont have to like our leaders, but you should respect them
Respect should be a response to virtue. Ordering the use of initiatory force against people to
control them is not virtuous behavior, therefore it is unworthy of respect.
7. You dont have to like the president, but you should respect the office of
the presidency
The office of the presidency, like any part of any government, is a violent criminal
institution. Violent criminality is unworthy of respect.
8. Our military
If the military is ours, then we should be able to exercise exclusive control over it. But
we neither command the military nor have the freedom to destroy it. Thus it is not ours;
it is a tool of the ruling classes used to make it very difficult for citizens to violently
overthrow the government, provide a last line of defense for the state in the form of martial
law should the citizens succeed in violently overthrowing the government, and present a
deterrent to other rulers elsewhere in the world who might seek to take over the state and
capture the tax base for themselves.
9. We need to make the world safe for democracy
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who gets eaten. This sort of behavior
should not be made safe; it should be made dangerous by giving the sheep means to resist
the wolves. Some will say that this is what a constitutional republic does, but this is false. A
constitutional republic is three wolves and a sheep voting for a representative among them

to decide who gets eaten. To claim that establishing a constitutional republic counters the
negative aspects of democracy is to claim that simply by making a chocolate cake doublelayered, one can magically turn it into something that is not chocolate.
10. You dont have to like what the police/military are doing, but you should
support them
Again, respect should be a response to virtue. Just as ordering the use of initiatory force
against people to control them is not virtuous behavior, carrying out said orders is also not
virtuous. Therefore it is unworthy of respect.
11. The homeland/Our nation
As only individuals are capable of action, only individuals may rightly own property. There is
no such thing as public property; there is only privately owned property and property which
has been stolen or otherwise interfered with by agents of the state. Thus, there is no
homeland or nation because these require collective ownership.
12. National defense/security
There is no such thing as national security apart from each individual persons security
because there is no such thing as a nation apart from each individual person.
13. Its the law
In a statist society, the laws are a collection of opinions written down by sociopaths who
have managed to either win popularity contests or murder their competitors and enforced at
gunpoint by thugs in costumes. The implication of the phrase its the law is that this state
of affairs is both necessary and proper, rather than inherently illogical and immoral. Also
implied is that the law is somehow sacrosanct and immutable, which is clearly false because
the aforementioned sociopaths both frequently alter the laws and routinely disregard the
laws they make for everyone else.
14. Voting is your voice in government
This statement assumes that there is no voter fraud, that votes are counted correctly, that
vote results cannot be altered by courts, and that politicians will do what voters tell them to
do. Each of these assumptions has an unfulfilled burden of proof at best, and is
demonstrably false on several occasions at worst.
15. Voting is a civic duty

A legitimate duty can only come from a legitimate right or contract. There is no such right
or contract that could create such a duty. In addition, there can be no legitimate duty to
perform an immoral act. Voting is immoral because it helps to impose violent rulers upon
peaceful people and gives the appearance of legitimacy to institutions which deserve none.
16. If you dont vote, you have no right to complain
This is exactly wrong. People who do not vote are the only people who have a right to
complain. Those who vote for people who win elections are endorsing politicians and their
minions who will engage in activities under color of law that would be punished as crimes if
you or I did them. Those who vote for people who lose elections may not be vicariously
responsible for the crimes of state agents in the same degree, but participating in the
system helps to create the appearance of legitimacy for that which is inherently illegitimate.
17. The public good/The good of society
Society, or the public, does not exist. Each individual person exists. As such, there is no
such thing as the public good or the good of society. There is only what is good for each
individual person.
18. For the children
Those who wield state power subject children to forced indoctrination that leaves them with
few marketable skills and restrict the ability of suitable guardians to serve as their parents.
They do not care about children as anything other than a means to shame and guilt people
into handing over more liberty and property to the state.
19. Government is necessary
This is a positive claim which carries a burden of proof. By itself, this is a claim asserted
without logic or evidence and may therefore be dismissed without logic or evidence.
20. Anarchy is chaos
The word anarchy comes from Greek ???????, meaning without rulers, or more
accurately, without beginning to take the lead. It does not mean an absence of order,
rules, or structure. The state, on the other hand, is chaos plus organization.
21. Taxes are the price for a civilized society
This is exactly wrong. Taxes are the price for failing to create a civilized society based on
voluntary solutions, and the degree of taxation corresponds to the degree of failure.

22. Paying taxes is a civic duty

Taxation is immoral because it violates the non-aggression principle, private property rights,
and freedom of association. There can be no legitimate duty to comply with immorality.
23. We owe it to ourselves
This would make one both a creditor and a debtor in the same transaction. This is a
contradiction, therefore it is false.
24. Were going to hold them accountable
This is contrary to the nature of the state. The state apparatus allows some people to do
what is ordinarily forbidden for anyone to do. Thus, the objective is to avoid responsibility
for the commission of crimes. Avoiding responsibility is the opposite of being held
accountable.
25. Who will build the roads?
If we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton? It does not matter. What matters is that
slavery is morally indefensible. So it is with government and who will provide services in its
absence. Also, it is not necessary to know the correct answer to a question in order to know
that a particular answer is incorrect. And who will build the death camps? The state also
provides intolerable disservices which would almost certainly not occur in its absence.
***
As Jim Quinn so eloquently concludes,
I realize this may be hard for some simple minds to grasp, but there can be no consent ,
implicit or otherwise given,where none was ever sought.
As Matthew Reece brilliantly points out in the essay above, consent to rule by violent
force is a personal choice and if that choice is not made voluntarily, then it is no
choice at all.
***