Applying the self-defeating apologetics of centralised government

State apologists claim that the state is somehow accountable to the voters who, anonymously and cowardly, choose between two identical, prechosen candidates every few years. As if voting means anything; this unaccountable, cowardly act, reducing your voice to a false dichotomy and a piece of paper, rather than putting your money where your mouth is and getting some skin in the game.

Nothing is more desperate to please than an aging hooker or a business in free market competition.

The argument of state accountability is an even greater argument for statelessness

Statism is self-defeating because it is self-contradictory. If an artificial monopoly of governance services — the state — is somehow “accountable” to a captive population whose only retort is voting in rigged elections between prechosen, generic, identical candidates, then a free market of governance services is even more accountable to people who vote every day with their money. Oh, and let’s not forget that this monopoly of governance — the state — also issues its only currency and forces us to use it — and only it — via threat-based taxation and customs fees. And you’re still grasping at straws to make up apologetics for the greatest corporatist monopoly possible: the state?

Unless “the state” is a benevolent deity (making statism a religious cult), to claim that “humans are evil, therefore humans need to be in charge of humans” is illogical, malicious, and quite insane.

Why?

It’s true: humans are indeed evil, malicious, selfish, and predatory. This is exactly why we cannot willingly relinquish our freedoms to a small group of evil humans posing as moral authorities, but end up becoming an unaccountable artificial monopoly on violence.

It is because humans are evil and can’t be left to their own devices that we need the only thing that truly keeps humans in check: competition on an even playing field. The state does not guarantee an even playing field; the state guarantees that those who control its apparatus of centralised government get to play from a vantage point, always, at the expense of the loser plebs, those deluded with the state’s lies.

There is no socialism, fascism, capitalism, communism, theocracy, monarchy, etc. There is only the state.

Statism is the false belief that a few evil people can govern the many evil people, and that those few, after acquiring a monopoly on violence and governance, are somehow accountable to the many. If a monopoly is accountable to the market, then imagine how much more accountability can be found in competing providers of governance services, where the incentive to be fair is infinitely greater. In a monopoly, in this case of governance services, people have no choice of governance providers, so the state can get away with bad, inefficient, ineffective governance, not to mention power abuses.

There is no need for any other argument against the state because this is the one argument the state itself keeps making: that a monopoly is somehow accountable to the people, and that’s why the state makes such great efforts to bring order and justice and all the other imaginary gifts statists imagine they get from the state.

Indeed, even a monopoly has some incentive to provide something, albeit the bare minimum; otherwise even a monopoly becomes irrelevant. But a competitive market is always more incentivised, more productive, fairer, and more willing to please the consumer, because of the pressures of competition.

Free-market dynamics in your personal life

There is no greater force than competition in all human affairs, not just the economy. Even in your personal life, you must feel the pressures of competition to grant you the wisdom of scarcity, humility, and gratitude. Only then can you have the fortitude to provide value to others and thus earn their affection. You’ll never be a good friend, relative, or spouse when those around you have no other choice, because then you become complacent, since you don’t have to work for their affection; they have nowhere else to go. Thus, you have very little incentive to provide any value, and you are both stuck in a forced relationship, resenting each other, because you never willingly chose each other. And choice matters, because choice gives meaning.

No, voting between identical, prechosen, false-dichotomy candidates is not choice, because the state always wins every election; changing their employees of the month or the “term” doesn’t make any difference.

Conclusion

Admitting that those in positions of power in the state have an incentive to please the people is an admission of free-market competition dynamics. This is an argument against the state, and for statelessness and competing governance services.

By now, it should be abundantly clear that decentralised governance is superior in every way to centralised government, or the state.

Even for the top-of-the-pyramid ruling class, they would have lived in a better world — economically, technologically, morally — had we had decentralised governance. But some people would rather be kings of ashes than among equals in heaven; they’d rather reign in hell because the alternative in their false dichotomy is “serving” in heaven.

And the plebs of the state support the state because they are fixed in appeal to tradition and appeal to popularity fallacies, which end up in a self-sustained cycle of perpetuated tradition and popularity.

Centralised government needs to end. Decentralise governance or keep watching the world descend into totalitarian dystopia.