UPDATE: After thinking more about this view over the years I have written an updated post that better explains my views on this subject. It can be found here.
I've written about this in the past here, and also here, but I wanted to set the record straight and write a post that really hits a nerve.
I wanted to get this across in the best way possible so I'm going to create a chart that compares the similarities between theism and statism. I wanted to create a format that would help to sink in this fact that so many atheists don't seem to get. And what might that be?
It's the fact that all atheists who support the state (government) are hypocrites. Yes, you read that right. Hypocrites.
Before I get to the chart, allow me to elaborate.
Atheists are hypocrites because many of them wish to see an end to religion; at the very least an end to its meddling in peoples' lives. Why do they feel this way? Well, since I'm an atheist too I'll throw out some reasons:
1. Religion often causes people to become ignorant and compells them to try to force that ignorance on others (ie. intelligent design in schools).
2. The ignorance religion can cause is harmful in another way, a way in which Sam Harris in The End of Faith made very clear: the threat of a nuclear attack. If we live among groups who are anticipating the end times, who's to say they don't launch an attack to speed up the arrival of the day they think their god is going to come down and make things all better?
3. The violence and wars that occur due to religious beliefs.
4. Religion restricts peoples' freedoms.
Those are some of the reasons atheists don't like religion, but the odd thing is, most atheists support their governments that do some of the exact same things!
NOTE: I'm sorry I didn't type the columns in. I'm still a novice when it comes to HTML and don't know how to create neat columns without messing things up. I tried for hours. It wasn't happening.
STATISM THEISM
Fellow Atheists: Now, as I said in a previous post, I ask you all to look a little harder and see that the government you defend is no different than the religion that many of you fight against.
This "State" you are talking about sounds rather corrupted, like most theocracies. I recommend you take a look at more secular nations like Sweden or Norway and also take a look at EU's Charter of fundamental rights.
ReplyDeleteHi Lauri ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. Yes, the government I describe is corrupt, and this goes for all governments. Some governments may be a bit better than others, but they still harm people through the use of force and steal from people (taxes). Put people in power long enough and they will go bad eventually. Have you ever heard the phase, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely"?
Maybe you should take a look at these:
Governments steal from everyone
Abuse of law run wild with no regard for peoples' right to do with their own bodies what they wish
Abuses at the hands of the state's henchmen run rampant
The government doesn't care about you; only what it can take
Think about it...
I think alot of those comparisons are non-sequitur. Some of them seem to be tenuous and grasping comparisons at best.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference is that in a proper representative democracy, the government does not wield ultimate authority, the people do. The government's power is derived from the "consent of the governed". And the people can choose to remove their government representatives and replace them at any time.
We CHOOSE people to run things, whereas we would have no choice with God. There's never an election to determine which deity will create/enforce the laws.
In short:
Government - power from the consent of the governed.
Religion - power by divine mandate.
I almost forgot...
ReplyDeleteStill think they care about you? Maybe they'll shoot you or just run you over.
Hi Mr./Ms. Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHow are they "non-sequiturs"? The point was that because atheists defend government with the same arguments theists defend their religion, many atheists are hypocrites. They reject a set of arguments as being irrational about one subject (religion), while at the same time, make use of those exact same arguments to defend another subject (statism) and don't see them as irrational when defending government.
I have to say that you're repeating government propaganda there about the "will of the people." Do you honestly think you control your government or their hired henchmen? Yes, you can vote to get someone out of office, but look back at every president; every leader. They've all done corrupt things at some point, and like I told Lauri, all governments steal your money at the point of a gun.
Do you really think your "power" (which is just an illusion) will stop a pig from shooting you or severely harming you in some way? Do you think it will keep the government from violating your rights in some way? No, because people see the cops as "good" and others as "bad" and they don't care what happens to them! I think it's insane and goes to show just how much the state brainwashes its citizens, just like religion does. To show you the height of this indoctrination, read this (and see the video this post links to).
To sum up, this "power" simply replaces one form of tyranny with another. For example, yes, Obama is better than Bush, but Obama is still stealing billions of all of our dollars and giving it to greedy corporations and others.
To demonstrate, look at the first comparison:
ReplyDeleteA president/congress hands down laws.
A god hands down laws.
On the surface, they seem to be similar and warranting of comparison. But the devil is in the details.
A god, who himself decided that he will be the lawgiver, hands down arbitrary laws that he thinks will be best. These laws are immutable. Regardless of what the people think of these laws, they can not be changed.
A congress, who the people chose to represent them, creates laws. This process is checked by two other branches of government. If the people do not like the laws, they can vote to remove congress from power, and vote in a new congress to change the laws.
When you start looking at the details of the situations, the comparisons begin to fall apart.
"They've all done corrupt things at some point"
Yes, and when they do, they are voted out of office if the people think it's a big enough offense to warrant their removal.
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely"?
Then I guess it's good that we don't give any member of our government absolute power.
You seem to be preoccupied with police brutality. Of course, I agree. I find it reprehensible. And I also find it reprehensible when the system that is supposed to bring justice to those offenders all-too-often lets them slide.
But the fact remains, if the people were pissed off enough about police brutality, they would elect representatives who would do something about it.
And yes, it may seem like the government is taking your money at gunpoint (I assume you are talking about taxes). However, the more rational way to look at it is that they are charging you for services. Services that you cannot possibly avoid using (roads, national defense, infrastructure, etc). That is, unless you are living in a cabin in the mountains, in which case you could probably get away without paying your taxes.
Hi there again, Mr./Ms. Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI must disagree with your assessments. Allow me to explain:
"A god, who himself decided that he will be the lawgiver, hands down arbitrary laws that he thinks will be best. These laws are immutable. Regardless of what the people think of these laws, they can not be changed.
A congress, who the people chose to represent them, creates laws. This process is checked by two other branches of government. If the people do not like the laws, they can vote to remove congress from power, and vote in a new congress to change the laws."
The only real difference is the election of who hands the laws down, which isn't much of a comparison since what if someone you did not choose got elected and started passing laws that you didn't agree with? Then, your argument falls apart. An even larger problem is the fact that, like a god, whatever they say goes. Whatever laws they enact you must obey or you will be punished. On top if it, these lawmakers can make a law as fast as they can take one away (which represents our freedoms), just as god can change his mind.
"Yes, and when they do, they are voted out of office if the people think it's a big enough offense to warrant their removal."
Yes, but someone who oftentimes does the exact same things gets right back in office so what does a vote really accomplish? As I said, it's a matter of degrees. Yes, Obama is better than Bush, but only because he isn't murdering anyone; he's only stealing billions of our dollars. One evil replaces another.
"But the fact remains, if the people were pissed off enough about police brutality, they would elect representatives who would do something about it.
And yes, it may seem like the government is taking your money at gunpoint (I assume you are talking about taxes). However, the more rational way to look at it is that they are charging you for services. Services that you cannot possibly avoid using (roads, national defense, infrastructure, etc). That is, unless you are living in a cabin in the mountains, in which case you could probably get away without paying your taxes."
Once again, with the vote, I've yet to see anyone address police brutality at all. Second, taxes isn't just about services. Yes, construction and whatnot are paid with our taxes, but these services can be done much cheaper and better without the middleman (government). Remember, the government often hires 3rd party companies to do the jobs for the government and what happens when you take out the middleman? Things become cheaper, and often better quality...and that's exactly what we see.
You might want to read this about taxes. Just a preview about the taxes you're forced pay:
From the mouth of the government itself:
They define taxes as "a compulsory payment for which no specific benefit is received in return."
When you think of the billions that Obama has given to people who have lost their homes and the big companies, what benefit does that give you? Or me? Or your neighbor? None.
Thanks for the comments. It's been interesting and has made me have to think and defend my thesis. I appreciate it.
"which isn't much of a comparison since what if someone you did not choose got elected and started passing laws that you didn't agree with?"
ReplyDeleteI think this is the crux of our disagreement. Your are speaking individually, while I am speaking about society. Yes, the law does affect you individually. And you may NOT have voted for the representatives that enacted that law, But the majority of our society did. So your real concern is not what rules you are burdened with by the government, but the rules you are burdened with by society. This is unfortunate, and I do sympathize, but it's a byproduct of our evolutionary history. Societal creatures always have societal rules that are enforced.
"Remember, the government often hires 3rd party companies to do the jobs for the government and what happens when you take out the middleman"
No need to remind me of this. I am a contractor, who does plenty of work for the government. And while it might seem nice to think "well, if we could just remove the government bureaucracy from the equation, these contractors wouldn't cost so much", but that's simply not the case. Many government contracts consist of multiple contractors working in tandem, each with their own organizational needs and specialties. Without the government bureaucracy coordinating and guiding all our efforts, we would not be able to work as effectively (unless we invested in some sort of integration solution to allow us to merge business processes, which I'm not convinced would cost less than government overhead).
They define taxes as "a compulsory payment for which no specific benefit is received in return."
Yes, no SPECIFIC benefit. You are still receiving benefits. You are just not paying for them specifically, you are paying for them generally.
"When you think of the billions that Obama has given to people who have lost their homes and the big companies, what benefit does that give you? Or me? Or your neighbor? None. "
Disclaimer: I'm not agreeing 100% with the implementation of the bailout and economic recovery plan.
The point is that it benefits society as a whole.
For instance, it may seem ridiculous that the automakers receive a federal bailout, after they drove their companies into the ground. Why not let them just go bankrupt, sell of their assets, and die?
Well, unemployment would skyrocket. Not just the autoworkers, but the people who supply the autoworkers with components, and the people who supply them with materials, etc.
If unemployment skyrockets, TANF (welfare) will not be able to handle the influx of individuals receiving assistance/unemployment.
Of course, I know your rebuttal would likely be "why should they receive ANY assistance. They shouldn't be supported by MY money!"
my counter-rebuttal:
1. That's easy to say when you are not in their position. The safety net is there for everyone, including you, should you be unfortunate enough to lose your job.
2. Societal health. Poverty is bad for the economy. Very very bad. It directly affects crime rates, economic productivity, living conditions, etc.
It's in everyone's best interest to minimize the amount of people living in poverty. You've heard of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps"? Sometimes we have to give people the boots first.
Thanks for the reply.
ReplyDelete"I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Your are speaking individually, while I am speaking about society. Yes, the law does affect you individually. And you may NOT have voted for the representatives that enacted that law, But the majority of our society did. So your real concern is not what rules you are burdened with by the government, but the rules you are burdened with by society. This is unfortunate, and I do sympathize, but it's a byproduct of our evolutionary history. Societal creatures always have societal rules that are enforced."
Yes, I'd agree with you there about the crux of the disagreement. I am an individualist anarchist so I don't think the majority should force their beliefs, morals on the minority. To me, that is immoral. To borrow a phrase from my friend Bob Clapp
"The greatest good for the greatest number equals the maximum evil for the minimum number."
Yes, that's the way society evolved, but is it the best way? The most moral way? Just because something has been done the same way for a long time doesn't make it any more moral.
"No need to remind me of this. I am a contractor, who does plenty of work for the government...we would not be able to work as effectively (unless we invested in some sort of integration solution to allow us to merge business processes..."
That's interesting. I would simply say that a government wouldn't be needed to coordinate multiple companies. Companies often join together in projects, and I've seen several examples of privatized services that replaced government services for much cheaper and ran much more efficiently. Examples, I believe, were provided in an earlier link.
"Yes, no SPECIFIC benefit. You are still receiving benefits. You are just not paying for them specifically, you are paying for them generally."
What benefits though? It's usually nothing that help out the individual, so essentially we're all living in a socialist economy in some sense. Which brings me back to an earlier point about our main disagreement.
I agree with you, but again, it's about freedom. I'm all for helping people. I've donated lots to charity and thousands to friends and family. Again, it's about taxes and how it amounts to theft. If people willingly gave up a portion of their wealth for people I wouldn't mind, but that's not what's happening. The money is actually being taken mostly from the middle class (I believe) and given to these people who may or may not even deserve a handout. What if a portion of these people who were given our money to keep them from losing their homes, simply didn't bother to keep up with their payments? And we're all stuck bailing them out. The same with welfare and people who don't actually need it, but get it anyway. True, it's also helping people who need it, but it's about agreements. It's most moral to agree to give up some of your wealth, not have it taken from you.
To me, taxes amounts to breaking into your home, putting a gun to your head and taking money out of your wallet. Now, would you think that was fair? Wouldn't you rather have your money go to people you want to help? Hopefully that will make my view on taxes easier to understand.
Let me try to be clearer. I've discussed this some here so I'll be brief.
The most moral way of interacting with individuals is through a social contract that everyone agrees to. Now, if people agreed to pay taxes, that's fine. But I don't agree with it, if it's simply forced on me.
I see everything, not from society as a whole, but as individuals who've hopefully come together and agree to abide by some contract. If not, they're free to go elsewhere.
Ultimately, society is just made up of individuals anyway, and to treat all people as one isn't right because everyone has different beliefs, needs, and wants.
"To me, taxes amounts to breaking into your home, putting a gun to your head and taking money out of your wallet. Now, would you think that was fair? Wouldn't you rather have your money go to people you want to help? Hopefully that will make my view on taxes easier to understand."
ReplyDeleteI do understand your point here. But the rational alternative is to say "I won't use those services, so I won't pay my taxes. But it is impossible for you to not use those services. You breath clean air and eat safe food. You purchase goods that have been shipped via public roads. You are defended from foreign invaders by our public army.
"Yes, that's the way society evolved, but is it the best way? The most moral way? Just because something has been done the same way for a long time doesn't make it any more moral."
We didn't evolve as social creatures because it was 'moral'. We evolved that way because it is EFFECTIVE. Individualism is great. I'm all for individual rights. And it's unfortunate, but some individual rights end up sacrificed in order for society to function.
"but as individuals who've hopefully come together and agree to abide by some contract. If not, they're free to go elsewhere. "
That's kind of how it works. We as a society (country) have decided what the rules are. You have to play by those rules to live in our society and reap the benefits of living in our society. If you want, you can remove yourself from our society. You really can. There are countless acres of unexplored land. Find some and be self-sufficient, and follow whatever societal rules you want.
You feel that taxation amounts to the government stealing your money. Unfortunately, that is the rule that society has chosen, democratically. If you don't like it, we aren't forcing you to stay here. You are welcome to go anywhere else. But, as long as you choose to remain here, part of our society, you have to play by the rules.
My opinions have shifted and changed over the years. And believe me, at some point (actually many points), I've been as anarchistic as you. But the thing that shocked me out of it was a revelation about the human condition. In a large society (such as ours), there will always be people in control. If all government (everywhere) was completely dissolved today, tomorrow individuals would begin massing power. They would gather followers and they would take control of resources. Whether it be corporations or warlords, someone would take control. Regardless of whether that's "moral" or not, it's simply a part of the human condition. At least with democracy, the people have the ability to CHOOSE who is in power.
A democratic society isn't perfect. Just better than the alternatives.
Regarding my last comment:
ReplyDeleteI realize I didn't respond to the entirety of your last comment, and that I may have sounded condescending. (the whole, "I used to think like you" thing). But I assure you, that wasn't my intent.
Regardless, I apologize for the brevity of my answer, but I am pressed for time, and unfortunately will not be able to continue our conversation currently. I have enjoyed it, and will certainly consider what you've said.
Just consider this, to reap the benefits of living in a society, you must also pay the price of following that society's rules. Our society has chosen to charge it's citizens for services provided by the government for the public good. Yes, these services do give the government power over your life, reducing your individual rights. But a private company delivering the same services would wield the same power over your life, but outside of the controls that a democratic government provides.
-Cheers
Hi Mr./Ms. Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteNo offense taken at all. I understood what you meant. I just wanted to write this real quick and let you know I'm not blowing you off and I'll respond later tonight or sometime tomorrow. I can't waste my whole day off playing on the net. :- )
Take care.
Hi Mr. Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm terribly sorry it's taken me two months to get back to you. I've been so very busy lately that I haven't had time to respond. I doubt you'll read this (assuming you've even been back) but I wanted to respond to your points real quick.
The following two comments are on the same topic so I will cover them both at the same time:
"I do understand your point here. But the rational alternative is to say "I won't use those services, so I won't pay my taxes. But it is impossible for you to not use those services. You breath clean air and eat safe food. You purchase goods that have been shipped via public roads. You are defended from foreign invaders by our public army."
"You feel that taxation amounts to the government stealing your money. Unfortunately, that is the rule that society has chosen, democratically. If you don't like it, we aren't forcing you to stay here. You are welcome to go anywhere else. But, as long as you choose to remain here, part of our society, you have to play by the rules."
I understand what you're saying, but the fact of the matter is, I didn't choose to pay taxes and have these services. I was born into this, and there really isn't any point in leaving since other governments in other countries do the same things. I am forced to pay for services that I either get no benefit from, or they can be done cheaper without the theft of my money.
Cont.
"We didn't evolve as social creatures because it was 'moral'. We evolved that way because it is EFFECTIVE. Individualism is great. I'm all for individual rights. And it's unfortunate, but some individual rights end up sacrificed in order for society to function."
ReplyDeleteYes, we evolved social instincts because they helped us survive, and I completely agree, but there is a point when our basic instincts become counter-productive in an ever evolving society, so why not suppress this urge for some person to rule over us, in order to do the moral thing? And that is to protect every single individual, which can be done through the social contract. I would consider it completely immoral to ignore the rights of others, even if they were the minority. By that reasoning, it should be OK to ignore the rights of people with disabilities for the sake of the majority. But we have advanced enough to take care of others less fortunate, but unfortunately this "group mentality" still thinks that democracy is the be all, end all, when it still harms the minorities in certain cases. You accept the harming of minorities in some cases, but not others. This makes no sense and is contradictory.
Cont.
"That's kind of how it works. We as a society (country) have decided what the rules are. You have to play by those rules to live in our society and reap the benefits of living in our society. If you want, you can remove yourself from our society. You really can. There are countless acres of unexplored land. Find some and be self-sufficient, and follow whatever societal rules you want."
ReplyDeleteIs it really how it works? Did you decide to take away the rights of homosexuals to marry? Did you vote for George Bush; how about Obama? What about those people who didn't vote for either of those individuals? "We" does not actually exist; we exist as individuals who have come together to form a society - or in most cases been born into this society. This society does not actually exist in reality because not every single person does not agree with every other person, therefore, there is no "we."
And if I decided to stop paying my taxes and live off the land you don't think the government will not look for me when I stop paying my taxes? I doubt it.
"My opinions have shifted and changed over the years. And believe me, at some point (actually many points), I've been as anarchistic as you. But the thing that shocked me out of it was a revelation about the human condition. In a large society (such as ours), there will always be people in control. If all government (everywhere) was completely dissolved today, tomorrow individuals would begin massing power. They would gather followers and they would take control of resources. Whether it be corporations or warlords, someone would take control. Regardless of whether that's "moral" or not, it's simply a part of the human condition. At least with democracy, the people have the ability to CHOOSE who is in power.
A democratic society isn't perfect. Just better than the alternatives."
I largely agree with what you've said, but that's one of the reasons I do this; why I write and speak out about it. Like the atheists who wish to rid the world of the corrupt and evil religious beliefs I wish to rid the world of the evil and corrupt government.
Will people try to amass power? Possibly, however, with the rise of our advanced technology perhaps sometime in the future humans beings can evolve once more and stop death and cure countless diseases. With this many of our fears could be eliminated and hopefully this will cause the human species to realize that we do not need any rulers to look out for us, or to help us. It is only because of fear and ignorance we human beings have evolved into a god/leader worshiping species. Whenever I see the media go on and on about president Obama I get the feeling I'm listening in on a preacher talking about how god will save us all.
That's been my entire point. When fear and ignorance are mostly eradicated the human species (I would hope) will see it doesn't need this authoritarian social structure any longer and choose to live how each of us wants to live and each of us abide by the social contract that each of us as agreed to.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Take care.
I've been thinking as of late that statist atheists aren't really against any of the four points that you listed. When I actually take a look outside of "my world" I can see that my views aren't universal even though I still have them.
ReplyDeleteSo, the only possible reason someone could have for disagreeing with these points is that they don't share your values. And yet, they still call themselves atheists. This begs the question...why are they really atheists? I'm an atheist too, and even I'm starting to wonder if it's true that these are the types of "atheists" who are probably bad people. So it kinda sucks that I'm coming around to the religious way of looking at things.
I think there are only two types of people: Those who want to impose their will on others, and those who don't.