The dumbest objections against statelessness #9
"What guarantees do you have...?"
A common and baffling objection to statelessness is the appeal to “guarantees.” Statist apologists demand to have guarantees that, if we were to abolish government, no evil warlord or dictator would suddenly enslave everyone… as if the existence of the state ever guaranteed anything.
I’ve said it before. Every single objection against statelessness applies to the state even more so.
What guarantees do you have that, under a socialist communist regime, a group of oligarchs would not just seize the apparatus of total government to do as they please unopposed?
What guarantees do you have that, under a republic, people in positions of institutional power will not sell their loyalties to the highest bidder, and baptise this bribing as “lobbying” to make it sound more palatable to the naive masses?
What guarantees do you have that, under a nationalist moralist government, people in power won’t become corrupt without any way for the people to protest or punish them?
What guarantees do you have that, under a democracy, political candidates wouldn’t betray again and again every single one of their campaign promises (or at best half-ass one or two of them to appease the gullible masses), and the people would have absolutely no way to hold anyone accountable for the crime of breaking their political promises?
What guarantees do you have that, under any form of government, the corruptible by power wouldn’t just decide to blatantly and openly refuse to honour their commitments to the people, as laid out in each constitution, and then the people would have absolutely no way of pushing back against this unfairness?
What guarantees do you have that, under any form of statism, the brutalising class made of police and military, would not abuse their powers over the people (and foreign people, no less) without any course of action available to hold them accountable, or at least prevent them from continuing their atrocities?
What guarantees do you have that, with the centralisation of military power in the hands of a state, the ruling class would not itch to use it, thus inviting military antagonism and total war that would otherwise be impossible without the existence of the state?
Answer me these first, since arguing for the state has the burden of proof over the default of statelessness, and then we can talk logically. Until then, reason and principle remain on the side of statelessness.
The dumbest objections against statelessness - Series
Go paid at the $5 a month level, and we will send you both the PDF and e-Pub versions of “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! and a coupon code for 10% off anything in the Government-Scam.com/Store.
Go paid at the $50 a year level, and we will send you a free paperback edition of Etienne’s book “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! OR a 64GB Liberator flash drive if you live in the US. If you are international, we will give you a $10 credit towards shipping if you agree to pay the remainder.
Support us at the $250 Founding Member Level and get a signed high-resolution hardcover of “Government” + Liberator flash drive + Larken Rose’s The Most Dangerous Superstition + Art of Liberty Foundation Stickers delivered anywhere in the world. Our only option for signed copies besides catching Etienne @ an event.