June 15, 2015 by Liberty
I tend to do my best to write this blog with a humble tongue. (Despite my tens of thousands of readers a month, my amazing writing eloquence, and my absolutely mindblowingly attractive hindquarters,) I try to offer a sensible perspective on my limited importance in the world. I don’t expect to change that world with this blog. At best, I hope to help 1 or 2 people that are more capable than me (perhaps by just giving them another person to hate.) Sure, I may try to do good things but I certainly don’t expect them to work.
Heck, if I get a few positive comments or conversations from the people close to me about my articles then I consider it a win.
Despite all that, I still get people calling me arrogant.
It’s one of those insults that it’s kind of hard to respond to…
Missing The Target And The Shooting Range Completely
Some insults are rather easy to dispel. Using a shooting range as a metaphor, some insults miss the target and hit right outside of it. You can directly point to where that insult hit off the mark. You can say, “Close… but consider this…” Some shots are so far off that they hit orbit, rotated around the earth before falling back in, and killed a poor New Zealander by now. Sure, it may be physically possible to offer proof that some insults are wrong but they’re so far from true that it’s insane to try to track down their final destination.
That was a little bit of a buried explanation of my point. Here it is in a more direct form. If someone calls me insensitive, I can easily understand the perspective. I can then offer evidence to suggest the reason I’ve made all my decisions is in the best interest of other people.
When someone calls me arrogant (or almost any libertarian for that matter,) they are offering an insult that’s so far off the mark that it’s impossible to respond to.
First of all, like many insults, arrogance is a completely subjective thing. It’s like they’re calling you ugly. They’re not questioning whether or not you’re right. They’re just poking you with an insult. The maturity level required to level that insult is the same as calling someone a pork face or something. It’s just immature.
“Hey buddy! You don’t have the same subjective scale of appropriate humbleness. SCREW YOU!”
It’s just stupid. Even if it is true, (which it is demonstrably not true for libertarians without implicating most of the accusers) it’s not even relevant. Let’s say I’m the most arrogant guy in the world. WHO CARES? If someone provides solid evidence for their claims it doesn’t matter. They’re still right.
So, how can I be so confident these arrogance claims are false? Well… I’m not so confident they’re not true. It’s a subjective scale. Anyone can lay it out however they like. I can be confident that most of them are completely hypocritical though.
Arrogance Of A Statist
The basic stance of a statist on any particular issue is arrogance. No matter what issue you’re talking about the state taking over, it reeks of arrogance. It wildly exaggerated the government’s power.
The government’s power is considered an extension of the power of the statist (it’s false but statists believe this.) The statists in America believe that government is under the control of the people. By voting, the people exert their power over it. It could be considered a puppet with the statists hand under it. To make it more accurate you’d have to imagine a puppet with 300 million hands up it’s butt but anyway… The statists believe their 1 in 130 million votes matters.
Right there, it completely reeks of arrogance. “I know I only have 1 vote out of over 100 million but MY VOTE MATTERS!” Really… the fact that they choose to go to an election booth instead of read a book shows a bit of arrogance in itself. But forget about that. Cover it up and pretend you didn’t see it. Let’s assume they really can have control over their government.
Assuming they have control over their government, they’re instantly responsible for the extortion of 300 million people through taxation. They believe that this is justifiable because they have the exaggerated belief that they know how to use someone elses money better than the owner does. (“The millionaire would have just bought a stupid yacht or something. We’re giving it to the poor!” Of course, that assumes the millionaire isn’t a humanitarian. It also pulls jobs away from professional yacht builders because apparently, it’s better they’re jobless and poor people get a handout.)
That assumption that you have enough knowledge to spend someone else’s money more efficiently than they do is absolutely false from basic economics. The ones that made the money in the first place, typically know how to efficiently spend capital better than the idiots that spend their whole paycheck on phones, televisions, and porn.
It’s just arrogance. But again, why stop there. Cover that arrogance back up. We can take this even farther.
What good things do statists do with that tax money? Well… let’s say they start a war on drugs to… you know… like always… protect the children!
Holy crap! The arrogance of this is leaking out my ears it’s so prominent.
Voters apparently know more about what’s safe to use and what’s not safe to use than doctors! Just look at the results of this arrogance. Sure, smoking that kills millions of people is cool. That’s completely legal. Sure, our kids can do that legally. Alcohol which also leads to ridiculous numbers of deaths. It’s perfectly legal. (Good luck prohibiting that one again.) But… weed… which kills relatively no one is completely and horribly illegal.
How much confidence do you have to have in yourself to take a child away from parents that occasionally smoke a joint? How much confidence do you have to have in yourself to lock up a good kid for selling it? How much confidence do you have to have to threaten hundreds of millions of people about all this? Well… I don’t see any of it as confidence. That’s what looks like pure and unadulterated arrogance.
This arrogance comes with virtually any government action you support. Even something as simple as a regulation on businesses requires it. A regulation on business suggests that you know how someone should run their business better than they do. It suggests you know better how to buy a product than the market does. It suggests you are somehow smart enough to control everyone else in the world’s behavior.
If I Were King Complex
Well… there oughta’ be a law that says people can’t call libertarian’s arrogant without first checking their own arrogance out.
Of course that’s not true but it’s to demonstrate the basic mindset of *most* statists. “There oughta’ be a law,” is a common phrase generally uttered by people who are statistly arrogant. They believe one of two things. One is that they have the knowledge and ability to improve the world using the violent enforcement of their beliefs. Two is that, even if it doesn’t improve the world, their belief should be violently enforced for their own personal convenience.
An old grandfather statist might walk down the street and see a young woman wearing yoga pants. He suddenly feels the tweak of his formal hormonal glory before realizing it wouldn’t go any farther then he might say, “Damn kids, dressing like sluts… there oughta’ be a law…”
While the grandfather would pretty it up by saying, “It’s inappropriate to be wearing clothes that sometimes show the shape of the vagina, it inappropriate,” or something. (Personally, I don’t want to pretty his argument up too well because I’m so biased against him right now…)
Grandfather statist is suggesting that anything that makes him uncomfortable is “inappropriate.” What the hell does inappropriate mean anyway? Inappropriate for what, for who, for when? It’s a mess of an argument. Can women wear them for yoga? In the bedroom? Can they wear them under something? They they wear them like a turban over their head? It’s just so stupid and arrogant that five minutes of questioning would reveal his true self centered motives.
At the end of this story, he dies in a car accident. (Sorry… I don’t like my made up character very much. Perhaps I’m being a tad harsh but he is a figment of my imagination so I’ll do what I like.)
As much as I don’t like this character, it’s actually part of virtually every statist to some extent. There seems to be this, “if I were king, everything would be better” belief. It’s absolutely insane how little people understand their own biases. (I kept that sentence despite the slight ambiguity of it possibly being a compliment towards the vertically challenged. Take it either way.)
I would be a miserable king. I know that because I find it pretty hard to believe anyone could be a good king. There is the old phrase, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” As much as I’d love to believe I was capable of offering a balanced and intelligent rule over any number of people, I just don’t think that makes much sense. Heck, there are days when I’m feeling too lazy to put pants on…
Sure, it would be immediately personally rewarding to take up the gig as world ruler but I’d fail miserably. The only productive thing I could possibly try to do is reduce my own power. That would take so much discipline and courage that I can’t guarantee I could do it. (On top of that, I’d probably be considering the stuff in my article “Libertarianism Failed.” Would my surrendering of power just corrupt someone else to violently take it over?
Of course, many statists do not think this way. In two minutes they’ll list you a dozen laws that they’d be passing in their government. They believe that they have the knowledge and abilities to do what no other dictator was capable of doing. They’d look at the corrupted kings in the past and say, “Oh… I won’t do THAT. I’m a good person!” They instantly assume that they’re not just as corruptible as the average person.
So… arrogance is what they’re accusing me of… Perhaps they should look in the mirror.
Arrogance and Right
Keep in mind, this article is not intended to prove the libertarian case in any particular way. It’s just a response to anyone that accuses a libertarian of being arrogant. (At the very least, it offers some things that libertarians should think about after this blind insult is applied to them.)
Arrogance doesn’t mean anything valuable. Sure, it has some aesthetic value. Just like physical attractiveness. The most arrogant man in the world might as well just be ugly because that is exactly how much it matters. (Sure, you might not want to date them but it proves absolutely nothing valuable about them as a person.)
Statists are not wrong because they are arrogant. They’re wrong for a slew of different reasons. I’ve likely listed thousands of reasons throughout this blog. Arrogance is not one of them. Heck, I ideally wouldn’t even mention arrogance in my discussion about them without it being used to point out hypocrisy. If I did bring it up without a reason then it would be little more than avoiding productive conversation.
If a libertarian is arrogant, it doesn’t prove they’re wrong either. Unfortunately, most of the people that apply an arrogant label at me do it when they have no actual evidence to disprove one of my claims. It’s just basic misdirection. It’s like a magician waving his hand in one direction to get you to look away from the card he’s palming. Suddenly, we’re not talking about an objective matter. We’re talking about a completely subjective matter that doesn’t even matter.
To me, that misdirection is an admission of failure. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the person you’re having the discussion with has given up trying to use evidence to prove the current discussion. Instead they’re trying to put someone else on the defensive. They’re changing the subject and hoping no one notices. Of course, that’s just the way I see it.
Maybe I’m just too arrogant to understand.
Do you love freedom, hate pants, and go to the mall on Saturdays? Wait… Why did I write that? Anyway… If you like the liberty side of issues be sure to check out the hundreds of articles in the archives and follow. Also, please share or donate to the site to keep it growing. (It’s survival and growth depends on it’s contributions.)