The dispute between statists and anarchists is often so fierce that few ever stop to determine where the burden of proof actually falls. How should society be set up? Should people be free? Should people be ruled? Is government necessary? How would anarchy solve societal problems?
It's easy to get bogged down with lifeboat situations and impossible hypotheticals (especially given that anarchists are eager to explain their position and spread the word), but who has the burden of proof?
What are the claims? What are the facts?
The anarchist claims that no one has the moral authority to rob, kidnap, rape, enslave, assault or murder other people. The anarchist's evidence is the fact that it's praxeologically impossible to consent to having one's own bodily integrity violated without consent. The anarchist says, "I own my body, therefore no one should violate my bodily integrity without my consent." Recognizing that all individuals own their own bodies, the anarchist acknowledges the universality of this duty of non-aggression.
The anarchist enjoys hypothesizing how things might work absent a group of individuals with a monopoly on violence but doesn't pretend to definitively know the specifics of how everything would work in their absence. The anarchist recognizes that life is too complex and has too many variables for any one person to decide how others should live absent violence. The anarchist's whole position is that people should live however they want as long as they don't harm or trespass against the property or bodies of others.
This is a reasonable enough position. What about the statist?
The statist claims that "government" exists as more than just men and women forcing people to pay them. The statist claims that these men and women govern by consent of the governed even though "the governed" are punished with violence for disobeying said governance. The statist uses the words "government", "state", "land", "people" and "society" interchangeably. The statist claims that the constitution, statutes, codes and regulations apply to everyone for no other reason than that they exist on a certain landmass. The statist claims that some men and women need to have a monopoly on violence. The statist claims that these men and women should have the moral authority to get away with theft, assault, kidnapping and murder if it's for "a good cause". The statist claims that "the lesser evil" is actually "the greater good". The statist claims that individuals have a duty to obey the men and women calling themselves government. The statist claims that this duty is immutable but that the property rights individuals have over their own bodies are not.
Unlike the anarchist who can demonstrate a praxeological proof for why it is universally immoral to violate the non-aggression principle, the statist has no evidence of their claims whatsoever. Instead of providing evidence, the statist gets emotional. Instead of providing evidence, the statist moves the goalpost. Instead of providing evidence, the statist makes accusations. Instead of providing evidence, the statist fear mongers. Instead of providing evidence, the statist ridicules, mocks and gaslights. Instead of providing evidence, the statist makes death threats.
The statist ignores the fact that "the state" is nothing but a group of men and women who force people to pay them. The statist ignores the fact that expropriation in the name of property protection is a performative contradiction. The statist ignores the fact that there can't be citizens absent reciprocal obligations of duty and protection. The statist ignores the fact that there can't be a state without citizens. The statist makes blunt assertions and defers to bullying because the statist has no evidence of his claims and isn't being logically consistent or intellectually honest.
Don't take my word for it. Just ask a statist for their evidence that the constitution applies to you and you'll see exactly what I mean. It will most likely go something like this actual conversation:
Me: "What evidence do you have that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "You can leave if you don't like it."
Me: "I can leave if I don't like the fact that you have no evidence that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "You can leave if you don't like government."
Me: "How do my feelings about government have anything to do with whether or not you have evidence that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "But you can leave."
Me: "Are you saying that I need to leave in order for you to present evidence that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "It applies to you because you haven't left."
Me: "How so? What's the evidence?"
Statist: "You haven't left."
Me: "You already said that. How does my physical location prove that the constitution applies to me? What's the evidence? Are you saying that my physical location only exists because of the constitution?
Statist: "Wow. You're willing to openly defy the government?"
Me: "I'm just asking a question. Is it your position that feigned bewilderment and non-sequiturs are valid substitutes for evidence of your claim that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "You can post online, right?"
Me: "How does my ability to post content on the Internet prove that the constitution applies to me? Isn't that just another non-sequitur?"
Statist: "You're only able to post online because the government stopped other governments from bombing you."
Me: "When did that happen, exactly? Even if that was true, how would that prove that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "It just does! Everyone knows that!"
Me: "Didn't 'everyone' know that the Earth was flat once too? If the evidence is so obvious to everyone, where and what is it?"
Statist: "Why don't you just move to Somalia?"
Me: "Is that where you keep your evidence that the constitution applies to me? If not, I'm pretty sure we already covered this."
Statist: "You can either have the government or you can sail off into the ocean."
Me: "Is that like how pirates make their prisoners walk the plank? How do false dichotomies prove that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "You're clearly not interested in rational discussion."
Me: "What qualifies as a rational discussion? Making claims with no supporting evidence then deferring to a string of logical fallacies when called out on it? Is that what I would need to do in order for you to be able to present evidence that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "We'll see how tough you are when you're in handcuffs."
Me: "Why would you need to put me in handcuffs to prove that the constitution applies to me?"
Statist: "I'm done. You'll get what you have coming."
Me: "Of course you are. Why provide evidence of your claims when you can just make threats?
So given that statists are essentially claiming that the men and women calling themselves government own everyone else, it can safely be said that theirs is the most extraordinary of claims requiring the greatest burden of proof. If statists reject freedom and anarchism out of fear that destruction and chaos would occur in the hypothetical absence of universal plunder, they must also reject the reality of universal plunder and "government" for the same reason.
I'm Jared Howe! I'm a Voluntaryist hip hop artist and professional technical editor/writer with a passion for Austrian economics and universal ethics. You can catch my podcast every Friday on the the Seeds of Liberty Podcast Network.
