Worst Arguments for the State

Many arguments have been aggrandized for the State. The range and depth of these arguments are a testament to the incoherency of man. Some of these arguments are sophisticated and require further dissection. Some are very lucid and can be countered expediently. However, there are two arguments that are frequented that are so atrocious, one must think there is an increasing intellectual incoherency. Presenting: "If you do not like this country/government then leave" and "This country has more freedoms then any other country, so quit complaining". The approach is not exactly the same with different people but the message is generally the same. It is time to obliterate these fallacies.

Argument #1: If you do not like this country/government then get out.

In this context I use government and country interchangeably because contemporary thought has blurred the distinctions. A government is a group of men exploiting the producers of a given territory; a country is that exploited territory.

For this government to have any validity, there has to be absolute property rights by the government. In order for there to be ownership of a given territory it has to follow 3 criteria: A) Take unused resources and manipulate it by your form so as to extend your presence in the material, B) Have it given to you by a property owner that followed the path of A, or C) If the property was clearly abandoned and there is no arise of any claims. With C though it is a little tricky and there still has to be a demonstration of A. With these protocols, does the State have this criteria for ownership?

None at all. The State, by it's own existence, exploits the wealth of the producers. Whatever monetary resources that was used by the US State in the past to purchase land from other Nation-states, those resources were stolen from the producers. Also in the existence of the State there has been the forceful removal of indigenous people from their private territories. In the context of the present, the argument of exile can only work on legitimate property.

In one example, let us say Ted was invited to John's company party. There are certain rules that the company enforces at all times regardless of how absurd it may be. Ted decided to show up to the party, for whatever reason, wearing a rival company's shirt. At the inception of the arrival a security guard approaches Ted and gives him 2 options: Wear a different shirt or simply leave the premises. The property of that company is legitimate because they followed the economic means to acquiring property. So the rules have the proper authority from the owners themselves. Since the State has never acquired property through these means then they have no authority or property claims in any nation. If someone does not want to be part of the government's domain, that person doesn't have to leave, the government has to.

Argument 2: This country has more freedoms then any other country,
so quit complaining.

This statement attempts to picture the world we live in as perpetual darkness and the Nation State(could be in any country) is a beacon of light. A world ruled by governments could be analogous to perpetual darkness. But as with every color, there too is differing degrees of lightness or darkness with that color. Not every State takes the same approach. Some are very totalitarian while others can be lax on the restrictions. Even though there are varying degrees of exploitation, it is still exploitation none the less and should be done away with.

Two men (another example) are captured by the Syndicate (hypothetical rebel group) and are subsequently tortured for perceived information. One is put in room A and the other in room B. In room A the man is being tortured by the use of slaps and punches. In room B the man is being tortured through the use of whips and wooden poles. Now let it be clear that the man in room B has sustained far greater injuries. One can say that person in room A shouldn't complain because he did not receive the greater punishment that was given in room B. How absurd to formulate such a view! Even though room A did not have the same amount of torture that was given in room B, there shouldn't have been torture in the first place. Two men were wrongfully accused, kidnapped, then tortured against their will. This is the tragedy of the story, this is the tragedy of our times. Coercion/exploitation is not seen one in the same for some reason.

I hope to have shown the ridiculousness of these arguments that are so loudly exclaimed. If you can, use these counter-arguments to whoever Statist you meet.