Cognitive Dissonance: It's an Epidemic

Most people have a set of beliefs they adhere to that helps guide them in their daily lives. Many people gather these beliefs through religion, philosophy, science, or by just pondering life's wonders and problems. I believe having a set of core values is very important, so long as these views are based on sound logic and facts. However, I firmly believe that the vast majority of individuals' philosophies are contradictory and lack cohesion. In other words, most people suffer from what is commonly called cognitive dissonance. This is a theory that “asserts that it is psychologically uncomfortable to hold contradictory cognitions. The theory is that dissonance, being unpleasant, motivates a person to change his cognition, attitude, or behavior.”

Many people, even very intelligent people, fall prey to this phenomenon. Examples include atheists and academics. Theists are one group who suffer severely from this.

When examining peoples' religious, political, or moral views you will find a great deal of contradictory beliefs. You have Christians who are pro-war, but anti-abortion. They hate abortion but place no blame on their god for killing an unborn fetus through miscarriages. You have atheists who are anti-authoritarian when it comes to religion but when it comes to government many atheists actually opt for an authoritarian government with too much power. Activist groups, such as CameraFraud.com, rally against the speed and red light cameras and make use of the argument that these devices violate our rights by placing every innocent man, woman, and child under 24-hour surveillance, but I've yet to hear a single word of protest against the hundreds of spy cameras that are on nearly every block in most cities in Arizona (and likely other states as well but I haven't confirmed this). People accept the absurdity of the state and federal drug laws. Many states have lifted the ban on marijuana but at the federal level using marijuana is still a crime. With this insanity the use of marijuana is both “legal” and “illegal” at the same instant! Because of this, a single tip off to the feds could create a rush of agents into a town that has legalized marijuana causing many people to be arrested. Talk about contradictory!

People, even very intelligent people, accept and often defend governments' contradictory and absurd laws. They accept the fact that some laws prohibit the use of steroids in sports and call it “cheating,” but at the same time allow soccer players to wear shoes that distort a players' foot position to make it harder for the opposing team to see what the player is doing. You also have baseball players and even pro golfers receiving eye surgery to improve their eye sight in order to improve their game.

Strictly speaking, what is the difference between taking steroids in order to improve your athletic performance and getting surgery to improve your eye sight or wearing shoes that help to distort your opponents' perception? Are they not examples of “cheating?” Are they not cases of giving yourself an upper hand? If so, why in the hell is one illegal and banned in sports and the others are perfectly OK? It's absurd and contradictory but most people accept this without question.

Most people look to make excuses (cognitive dissonance) for their contradictory views. For example, they argue that steroids are very dangerous and unsafe. They make the common and pathetic argument that “we must protect the children!” They believe that by making steroids legal children will be using them on a constant basis. Their hypocrisy is exposed when it's pointed out to them that alcohol and cigarettes are also used (unfortunately) by children and teens but these substances are perfectly legal.

Another major issue where cognitive dissonance is great is the issue of authority. The vast majority of people place institutions, laws, and leaders over the individual. A common argument is “But, it's the law!”

This is one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard. It is entirely illogical and unethical. In essence, the people who say this are placing people, institutions, and mandates on a pedestal above human beings. Rather than realize that we are all human beings, with equal worth, many place these leaders and their laws in positions that trump a person's (or a group of peoples') humanity. In addition, laws are oftentimes indecent, illogical, and incompassionate. The incompassionate immigration laws are a perfect example of this. These laws were born out of pure racism and continue to be spurred on by racist beliefs and attitudes.

I've covered many of these contradictions in an earlier post, and explained how statism is nearly identical to theism. Both place authority over the sovereignty of human beings.

Due to these contradictions both theists and statists attempt to reduce the conflict between these views by making various excuses that are illogical when closely examined. Let's take taxes as one example.

Allow me to cite a passage in Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty quoting the anarchist Lysander Spooner (placed in italics by me), with Rothbard's comments immediately following:

It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other. . . .

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

It is instructive to inquire why it is that the State, in contrast to the highwayman, invariably surrounds itself with an ideology of legitimacy, why it must indulge in all the hypocrisies that Spooner outlines. The reason is that the highwayman is not a visible, permanent, legal, or legitimate member of society, let alone a member with exalted status. He is always on the run from his victims or from the State itself. But the State, in contrast to a band of highwaymen, is not considered a criminal organization; on the contrary, its minions have generally held the positions of highest status in society. It is a status that allows the State to feed off its victims while making at least most of them support, or at least be resigned to, this exploitative process. In fact, it is precisely the function of the State's ideological minions and allies to explain to the public that the Emperor does indeed have a fine set of clothes. In brief, the ideologists must explain that, while theft by one or more persons or groups is bad and criminal, that when the State engages in such acts, it is not theft but the legitimate and even sanctified act called “taxation.” The ideologists must explain that murder by one or more persons or groups is bad and must be punished, but that when the State kills it is not murder but an exalted act known as “war” or “repression of internal subversion.” They must explain that while kidnapping or slavery is bad and must be outlawed when done by private individuals or groups, that when the State commits such acts it is not kidnapping or slavery but “conscription” - an act necessary to the public weal and even to the requirements of morality itself. The function of the statist ideologist is to weave the false set of Emperor's clothes, to convince the public of a massive double standard: that when the State commits the gravest of high crimes it is really not doing so, but doing something else that is necessary, proper, vital, and even – in former ages – by divine command. The age-old success of the ideologists of the State is perhaps the most gigantic hoax in the history of mankind.

Ideology has always been vital to the continued existence of the State, as attested by the systematic use of ideology since the ancient Oriental empires. The specific content of the ideology has, of course, changed over time, in accordance with changing conditions and cultures. In the Oriental despotisms, the Emperor was often held by the Church to be himself divine; in our more secular age, the argument runs more to “the public good” and the “general welfare.” But the purpose is always the same: to convince the public that what the State does is not, as one might think, crime on a gigantic scale, but something necessary and vital that must be supported and obeyed. [1]

I don't think I could have said it any better than that. I would, however, like to point out the fact that not only has “conscription,” or military service, often been coerced in the past, but people are routinely randomly enslaved by being forced to attend jury selections and subsequently placed on a jury. You are forced by threat of punishment to take a certain number of days off of your job in order to serve the government. That, in essence, is a form of slavery. The most hypocritical aspect of all this is the fact that jury duty is actually unconstitutional! The 13th amendment to the constitution says,

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Once again, as with taxes, statist apologists come up with all kinds of rationalizations about why these are not actual examples of slavery or theft, but rationally their excuses fail upon close scrutiny (for those who see through the ideology of the state that is).

The next obvious question is how can one reduce the inconsistencies in their worldview. One method I've found to be useful is by adhering to a sound first principle such as the Primacy of the human being. Having a first principle that helps to ground your views creates a consistency that is lacking in the political, moral, and religious views of most people. Prime is one principle that can do this because it makes the individual human being the focal point and not the man-made institutions and laws which are the source of so much cognitive dissonance.


A post related to cognitive dissonance about how the meaning of words are often distorted by the State and its apologists is called Language Prostitutes and Their Symbols, by Robert Clapp.


1. The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard, New York University Press, 2002; 167-169