The Mother that Hates Us, the Father that Left Us

I hereby assert that a religion-in-all-but-name has corrupted the world's societies. Its infection has corrupted the way that we think, act, and the way that we communicate. Basic knowledge has been lost and language has degraded from a profound process into a hegemonic tool.

If I am to be branded "extreme" or "radical" or "crazy" (labels that practitioners of logic have proudly worn for centuries) for expressing these views, then I guarantee that by the end of this essay, you will bear precisely the same brands.

The Liberating Father, The Loving Mother

The fundamental dichotomy in free society is individualism vs collectivism. In terms of ethics, this is aspiration vs duty; and in terms of psychology, it is resilience to shame vs sensitivity to shame.

Individualism: The Morality of Aspiration

The component of morality that appeals to the individual is aspiration. This simply follows from every person's purposeful action to improve his circumstances, that he ought to be able to do so. Within the context of the morality of aspiration, any action that leads to a better circumstance is "good" and any action that leads further from it is "bad". This is the morality of the Good Life; of excellence; the fullest realization of human powers; etc.

The morality of aspiration begins at the top of humanity. When one person urges another to eat healthy, he is appealing to it. When one person picks up a difficult book to read, he does so out of a desire to improve.

A lack of aspiration is to be considered a failure, not a wrongdoing. One can fail to realize his potential but should not be criminalized for that failure. After all, no law or policeman can compel a man to live up to his full potential. The morality of aspiration simply tells people to be better and pursue their interests, but it cannot tell them what the Good Life is. That must be discovered individually.

Psychologically, the morality of aspiration tells us to resist shame. Shame is important for social animals as a form of punishment for unacceptable behavior. It is a purely social consequence. Shame, as a learning tool, teaches people how to live among one another, but it can be taken too far or not far enough. A balanced person must be able to display resilience to shame (individualism) but must also suffer from some sensitivity to it (collectivism). The shame dichotomy will become more relevant when I discuss the two ethical extremes.

Collectivism: The Morality of Duty

Where the morality of aspiration begins at the top of human action or that which should be achieved, the morality of duty begins at the bottom or that which should be condemned.

The morality of duty emphasizes the basic requirements of social living, or the basic obligations people ought to have towards one another. A duty inherently obeys the principle of reciprocity; it is an exchange between people, but not always an explicit exchange. One has a duty to not steal my property despite never having explicitly come to an agreement with me that we would not steal from one another.

The morality of duty simply follows from us being social animals. Even male antelope obey some hidden rules when in combat for a mate, rarely injuring one another in the process. The act of honesty is an obligation (duty) towards one another, and anyone that is caught lying is criticized in terms of the morality of duty; in terms of their failure to uphold their end of an often unspoken bargain; thereby relieving the other party of his obligation to be honest in return. To fail in terms of the morality of duty is to

1. be negligent in one's duties

So soon as it becomes perfectly clear that you have no intention whatever of treating me as you yourself would wish to be treated, then I shall consider myself as relieved from the obligation to treat you as I would wish to be treated. ¹_p.21

2. or to impose obligations where obligations ought to not be imposed.

Psychologically, the morality of duty tells us to be sensitive to shame.

The Dangerous Father, The Overbearing Mother

If you are not convinced that (I) these moralities [should] exist, try imagining what it would mean if they didn't. If the morality of aspiration didn't exist, then that would be equivalent to claiming that people should not try to improve; that a person does not act purposefully. If the morality of duty didn't exist, then that would be the equivalent of claiming that humanity is not social and should not (or does not) honor obligations.

If you are not convinced that (II) these moralities form a fundamental dichotomy, try imagining all possible criticisms of a person. I posit that every criticism of a person ever made can be categorized as a failure to aspire or a failure to fulfil an obligation or the act of forcing obligations where they ought to not belong. I posit that every action in society is in terms of one of the two moralities. Let us examine an example.

Tribes are just beginning to organize into a coherent society. Tribe A, who lives downstream, is at odds with Tribe B, who lives upstream and is dumping their waste into the river. The council of all tribes come together to discuss this issue, and quickly come to the conclusion that this issue is larger than the dispute between two tribes; that it will determine how broader society should behave regarding the dumping of waste in rivers. This is a clear example where society has to devise a collective rule - an obligation. Society has to impose obligation on individuals because we cannot allow others to dump their waste upstream of us, which infringes upon the property of others (a form of theft). This simply reduces to people not allowing other people to steal from them.

Imagine another scenario where Tribe C is offended by the way in which Tribe D honors their dead. Tribe C calls the council of tribes together, hoping to enforce their own way of honoring the dead onto other tribes. In this scenario, Tribe C's petty need to control others is the true issue. Tribe C believes that others have a duty to it where a duty ought to not belong. We ought to be careful when others want the iron hand of forced obligation imposed subjectively or arbitrarily.

Where do we draw the line between the individual and the collective? In other words, what is the relationship between the two moralities (ethics)? What is the center point on the shame spectrum (psychology)?

If the line is drawn too high, or the collective encroaches upon the territory of the individual, then the rigidity of duty smothers creativity and autonomy.

If the morality of duty reaches upward beyond its proper sphere the iron hand of imposed obligation may stifle experiment, inspiration, and spontaneity.¹_{p. 27-28}

Psychologically, this represents a hyper-sensitivity to shame or one who attempts to shame others for actions that are not his business in the first place. The former in this scenario is referred to as the oversocialized.

If the line is drawn too low, or individual/collective, then the morality of aspiration encroaches upon the territory of the morality of duty and

men may begin to weigh and qualify their obligations by standards of their own and we may end with the poet tossing his wife into the river in the belief – perhaps quite justified – that he will be able to write better poetry in her absence.¹_{p. 27-28}

Psychologically, this represents a hyper-resiliency to shame, or one who remains unaffected by his responsibilities to others. The person in this scenario is referred to as the undersocialized.

With our ethical framework, we have arrived at the definitions of villainy. What we refer to as "villains" are people who draw the line of morality too high or too low.

Johnny Ringo (Tombstone. 1993), Prince/King Joffrey (A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin), The Joker (Batman franchise), and in the real world, the perpetual-seeker-of-lawsuits are villains that draw the line too low; they tend to take from others without reciprocating. Since they choose to allow the morality of aspiration to encroach upon the territory of the morality of duty, they are what I call, the aspiring villains. Within the discipline of psychology, if a person suffers from undersocialization or a hyper-resiliency to shame, that person can exhibit traits of these villains, since both the undersocialized and the aspiring villain tend to be thieves (to not be a thief is to respect others and expect the same in return).

Professor Umbridge (Harry Potter), Nurse Ratched (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), Agent Smith (The Matrix), the person who is entitled (when not defined subjectively), and the over-bearing (when not defined subjectively) parent are villains/behavior that draw the line too high by imposing unfair obligation; they tend to punish others for failing to fulfil arbitrary or impossible standards. They are each the epitome of one-who-imposes. If a person suffers from oversocialization, that person will exhibit traits of the dutiful villains, or perhaps more interesting, be the ones most victimized by the dutiful villain (i.e. be the dutiful villain's lackeys: the modern leftist).

A dichotomy is a spectrum of two things that are inversely related. The two moralities form a dichotomy because one has fixed or sacred points while the other does not. The morality of duty holds ownership (how can we exchange if we don't believe in ownership?) and the freedom to contract (how can an exchange be reciprocal if we cannot choose who to exchange with?) to be fixed points; whereas the morality of aspiration holds no thing to be sacred.

The Trader's Dichotomy (Economics)

Perhaps not-so-coincidentally, human economics is perfectly analogous to this morality. Economics is the relationships of exchange (RoE) and the principle of marginal utility (PMU). The RoE is the collective component of economics. The PMU is the individual component of economics.

The relationships of exchange (collective economics) mirrors the morality of duty (collective morality). Both have fixed or 'sacred' points (obligations towards others) by relying on the principle of reciprocity. After all, without collective obligation, property rights would be meaningless. Neither the relationships of exchange (ROE) in economics nor the Duty in ethics can exist without people having these mutually agreed-upon sacred points of property rights and ability to contract.

The principle of marginal utility (individual economics) is how a person uses their resources, and it mirrors the morality of aspiration (individual morality). Neither the principle of marginal utility (PMU) in economics nor the aspiration in ethics hold anything to be sacred except for whatever higher state one is trying to achieve. We maximize the "utility" of our resources (PMU) to reach some economic state; it does not matter how we organize resources or time so long as their utility is maximized. The same can be said of the morality of aspiration to reach the Good Life. The two are even similar in their shortcomings because neither can tell us what the "economic state" or "The Excellent Life" is. They simply tell us to (and possibly how to) achieve it.

Since the relationships of exchange and the morality of duty form a dichotomy with the principle of marginal utility and the morality of aspiration respectively, this is the fundamental dichotomy in a free, or non-political society. If one is taken too far, we arrive at a form of villainy.

Though villainy seems bleak, the natural condition of free society is an emerging order of cooperation. The most complex social orders have resulted from the free market after all. Production and innovation happen there. Men can only "get ahead" by helping other men with the exception of the occasional villain, which is not a winning long-term strategy. As for villainy in society, it is a problem that has never been efficiently or competently addressed by the inverse of freedom – organized coercion.

In an unfree or coerced society, morality, economics, and language itself becomes so bizarrely incomprehensible that even the best of minds become handicapped. Whereas the free society dichotomy is based on individual vs collective, the political dichotomy is based on freedom vs organized coercion. This is because systematic theft and force (organized coercion) must distort the meaning of individualism and collectivism in order to continue plundering society. Hence, the dichotomy of political/coerced society becomes knowledge vs indoctrination. Coercion cannot occur unless language is degraded, large swaths of people are indoctrinated, and dissenters censored.

The Mother that Hates Us, The Father that Left Us

When I identified the two programs and their developers that censor us;² software that places state indoctrination (under the guise of leftist politics) in front of audiences online;³ and techniques that could only be described as the high-tech creation of statist lackeys,⁴ I was naively certain that the statist would reconsider his loyalties. Instead, he unwittingly appealed to the morality of duty by exclaiming that these companies were private and that the relationship between platform and user is reciprocal in nature. This would have been a sound defense of these actions if it were true (since the free exchange means that both parties - internet users and tech platforms - are free to not engage in that exchange). Unfortunately, it is not a free exchange at all. Government printing of money and grants - money taken from us by force - were issued out to the organizations involved, and government coercive powers were wielded against the competitors of the participating organizations.⁵ "Big tech" censorship was government censorship all along, and government agencies were more than happy to allow the public believe the problem was the markets rather than the state, a falsehood that would only end with the state being granted more powers to ironically combat a problem created by the state.

Censorship (to stop ideas) could never have occurred without indoctrination (to force ideas), and the software programs and collective techniques of each had to first be justified by propaganda (e.g. "extremists" need to be censored to protect society). All of it was funded by an entity that threatens its servants with force if they do not comply. Thus, the only censorship and indoctrination that truly matters is censorship and indoctrination born of force - from force to manipulation. Such is the legacy of the resources taken from taxpayers.

After I showed that the official government created a proxy government online to censor and indoctrinate,⁶ the most obvious of the modern statists, the leftist, abandoned the "private company" argument for the "public interest" argument instead. He cried out that it was in the public's interest to protect us from extremists and racists. Once again, he was wrong.

• one has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than attacked by a far-right group in North America,⁷
• an enormous effort with considerable international data advantages assembled such a meager dataset of white supremacists that their empirical approach was abandoned,⁸
• the dominant methods to classify "racist" and "misogynist" were too arbitrary to rely on,⁹
• America has extraordinarily high inter-ethnic and inter-racial relationship ratios which ironically resulted from the "racist" non-left.¹⁰

The censorship and indoctrination that Westerners have been observing is a result of government intervention. Not only were certain ideas suppressed and other ideas forced, but language itself is being altered. This, by the way, is more fundamental than government's control in the digital market. I will show that language distortion happens in every government intervention in any market. If organized coercion is used, the distortion of language is necessary.

After I exposed the insignificance of extremism, racism, and hate crime events, the leftist resorted to claiming that each were serious threats because various (selective and flawed) opinion polls say so. If we are going to base our arguments on how the public feels, then why not believe conservatives when they claim that "the elites are waging a war on small businesses"? Or conversely, why not believe the right when they claim that they are not racist and extreme? Such is the issue with collective arguments.

Speaking of the other side of our political coin, despite being censored and slandered by the very entity they pay taxes to, the current "right" clearly outcompetes the left in

• comedy (the left has bots, the right has memes);
• the marketplace of ideas i.e. start-up news industry;
• and even the primal market of relationships and sex by a staggering 11%, making the modern leftist measurably less desirable than the modern rightist.¹⁰

This is undeniably the result of the filter of information control on society. The left is targeted for indoctrination while everyone else is targeted for censorship; hence, creating a filter effect. Only the most susceptible to the propaganda succumb to it, and only the most resilient are censored. Hence, while the conservative - one who reveres government as an instrument of chastisement while inconsistently rejecting it as an instrument of beneficence - is also a socialist and a statist, he is currently far more liberty-oriented and less statist than the leftist due to this filter effect. However, the rightist is guilty of flawed arguments as well.

When I ask the rightist about breaking up big tech with antitrust enforcement, he enthusiastically supports such State powers, despite (again) being slandered by that very State. Even after showing him that it was The State behind all of the information control measures that he despises and after showing him the frightening nature of antitrust enforcement,¹¹ convincing him is often futile as he hypocritically clings to the socialist's de facto definition of a "monopoly" rather than the more meaningful de jure definition.¹¹ This is an example of language distortion that serves the interest of State expansion.

As a further example of his flawed use of language, the rightist believes the leftist has abandoned "responsibility", but the evil of the left is precisely that they want to impose oppressive obligations (responsibilities) where obligations ought to not belong, such as sexual preference which ought to remain in the hands of the individual; forced charity which ironically renders the act meaningless; uniformity in speech and tone; and a great deal of other examples. The leftist does not abandon responsibility contrary to what the rightist believes - the leftist abandons achievement, autonomy, individualism, and all of the suffering that accompanies it. The leftist abandons the morality of aspiration, often because he suffers from over-socialization or a hyper-sensitivity to shame, which is why he appears to have so little personality himself. He is the real-life version of Dolores Umbridge or her lackeys. Even when he appears to be abandoning social obligations, such as the 2020 "defund the police" narrative which was ostensibly a cry for a social organization (government police) to be disbanded, the intent was to indoctrinate the police by intimidation rather than disband them. The leftist wished to render government police not just bound by obligation fiscally but bound by a twisted morality as well. Interestingly, the rightist is guilty of the very same logical fallacies as the leftist, often attempting to impose arbitrary or subjective obligations onto his fellows despite the lack of prosperity that results [see my example of state police vs private police below].

The Great Degradation of Language has a Name

From our earlier examples, the leftist's concept of language is so damaged that he cannot distinguish between coercion (threat-of-force theft) and freedom (reciprocal exchanges), making him immensely useful to an entity that relies on coercion. He has even been led to believe that if a company is some arbitrary size (defined by the government official of course) then that company is coercive or exploitative and ought to be broken up by the (ironically, coercive) powers of the state. This is a trap that the rightist falls into when a company is accused of "indoctrinating" and his knee-jerk reaction is to wield the Great Indoctrinators - The State - against a problem that is almost always caused by the subtle hand of The State to begin with. What each believes to be "coercive" or "indoctrinating" depends entirely upon the edicts passed down to him by coercive and indoctrinating authorities! Admittedly, more subtlety is required to convince the current rightist as he is, on average, more clever than the current leftist, but identical results are produced on each regardless. Volumes could be filled on the words whose improper usage benefits the State, making our job of reaching each indoctrinated group a task of breaching a semantic gap.

In modern times, this began with the state's unofficial seizure of radio broadcasting, then television, then news, telecommunications to a limited degree, and finally to the internet with non-profits as a front. Two of the largest disciplines - ethics and economics - are a direct threat to government. As such, most of the bearers of these titles are fraudulent while the true scholars are thoroughly censored (The Mises Institute, for instance). Fake disciplines such as counter-extremism with their ill-defined "extremist", trauma-psychologists with their lack of training in calculus and other data-analysis tools, sociologists and their lack of basic axioms from which to define their own field, state-funded and state-certified lawyers with their arbitrary metrics, and many others are a direct result of the government official's need to keep people in a fearful or ignorant state.

All of the government official's argument require the distortion of facts and fraudulent authoritative figures; and thus, results in the degradation of language.

Organized Coercion

Organized coercion is a collective effort that is funded by forcefully taking resources from citizens within its jurisdiction. We call this "government". Since force is used, the morality of duty does not hold even in the best of circumstances. Citizens of democracy, for instance, have been fooled to believe that democratic voting is a reciprocal exchange because they vote for their representatives, yet once those candidates are voted in and become government officials, they receive a salary regardless of what they do for their voters. If that official's actions do not meet the voter's standards, the voter does not have the option to forego the services of the official like the economic trader does in the exchange. Whether the voter likes it or not, money will be taken from him to pay for the official's salary until the official's term expires. Even after his term, any new government beaurocracy that he creates within his term will be paid for via the same force, only that payment will possibly continue long after the politician's term ends. This is one way in which political voting benefits government. The red team may win this round, and the blue team may win the next, but government wins all rounds. Furthermore, the political voter does not have nearly as much control as the economic trader has. A citizen must choose between having economic freedom and voting "power". An increase in government's size or scope, by definition, corresponds to a citizen having less economic freedom as more of his decisions are made for him by politicians and bureaucrats. As the State expands, a citizen becomes less of an economic trader and more of a political voter. And contrary to what socialists and Marxists claim, the more of a political voter a person is, the less political power he has as his vote is smaller in comparison to everyone else's.

The government official is insulated from the principle of reciprocity (the morality of duty), which is a praxeological statement that holds for all government officials - even "the good" ones. It holds for unelected officials if we replace "voter" with "citizen". It holds for tax-funded teachers and policeman just as much as it holds for intelligence officers. Indeed, it holds for anyone who receives tax revenue, even if that revenue is called a "grant" because these are stolen moneys that were not earned properly. The economic trader can forego services of other traders, so for an exchange to occur, it must benefit both parties. With stolen moneys, on the other hand, no such mutually beneficial outcome is necessary. The benefactor of coercion is insulated from the principle of reciprocity - the very principle that determines if the morality of duty is being followed properly, and the very principle that determines if the morality of duty is being wielded arbitrarily.

In fact, with our proxy government of tech platforms and non-profits in the digital markets, the act of giving these grants out to select researchers was a threefold corruption of the principle of reciprocity: (i) opportunists were paid via coerced funds for a task that would have negatively affected them in a free society; (ii) dissenters (Parlor, for instance) were slandered as "extremist-infested"; and (iii) the government-narratives-disguised-as-empathetic-leftism were slander of the very users on those platforms. Regardless of one's status as an opportunist, dissenter, or user, each had to pay for it all via taxation. Those that are slandered are paying for the "service" of being slandered - only theft and force can produce such bizarre ethical scenarios.

Not only is the government official less competent than the economic trader due to the former being insulated from reciprocity; but the government official is more wasteful as well. Most pollution, which is a form of waste, is caused by government agencies or government regulated industries. This is because the government official, particularly in publicly-owned government is insulated from the principle of marginal utility; he uses ill-begotten resources, and when he wields the government apparatus as a steward, he is wielding something that does not directly belong to him. He does not have to maximize the utility of resources, and is even incentivized not to do so in many cases.

People know of the State wastefulness and atrocities in the digital market, but neglect to ask basic questions: Does the digital market contain unique properties that attracts the corrupt State official, or are other markets similar? What is the nature of the State?

Do we simply have "too large" of a government?

All of these bad things are happening in society, and whenever we look close enough, government is both the catalyst and the origin. Information control, my magnum opus, originated from government intervention. The costly and wasteful safety protocol within the construction sector, and even the unproductive "wokeness" (left-statism) of corporations was a response to government intervention.¹⁵ Is it the unique property of a "large" government to degrade language and prosperity?

Well, if we are willing to toss out logic and embrace arbitrary ethics, then we can define "bad" by some specific size and anything above that size will be condemned while anything below will be acceptable. Clearly, bad behavior cannot be logically defined by such metrics.

Bad behavior justified by size:

• It was only 29.3% of a lie!
• She only stole 5/32 of your sandwich!
• You were only raped for 7 and 1/2 thrusts!

Innocuous/good behavior condemned by size:

• You make $1.602 more than I do?!!
• You only gave away 1.5 kidneys to charity!?

Logically, the ethical argument that some collective endeavor is too large or too small is no less silly than the argument that "You were only raped for 7 and 1/2 thrusts". Rape is wrong - it is an infringement on another's body/property. While ethics can be complicated, it is never arbitrary.

The government problem is not quantifiable but instead categorical. Government is bad because it is sanctioned theft, which necessarily means it is less competent and more wasteful than its free market analogs. It is bad because it decreases prosperity. It also has to lie about morality and economics in order to justify itself; so it is bad because it is dishonest and degrades language. None of these facts are determined by arbitrary calculation but instead by careful argumentation.

"Large" governments (whatever that means) do not possess some special unethical properties that "small" governments do not possess. No matter how we define "small government," it is bad for precisely the same reasons, only on a smaller scale.

The profound truth is that:

There has never been a logically sound argument for the State; and the very act of trying to justify it necessarily degrades language.

The ways in which State powers is argued rely on the following fallacies in addition to relying on ad hoc fallacies:

Each statist argument contains an ad hoc fallacy as well. It is merely assumed that a government endeavor is specifically required to solve some problem rather than the near-infinite possibilities of the free market. In other words, the statist claims that some scenario or service contains some special properties and therefore must be addressed via coercion . He never proves the existence of these special properties. The statist even assumes that his arguments are not universally true; he applies them only to specific scenarios. I challenge a reader to devise an argument for government that is absent of this fallacy.

The statist must also selectively acknowledge the small good provided by a government action and excludes the net bad that results, distorting what the morality of duty represents. It is no mere coincidence that a government official never conducts a cost-benefit analysis of his agency or piece of legislation. First of all, he would have to sum up the taxation and fees collected by his government agency. Secondly, he would have to calculate the other lost prosperity and lost innovation (an impossible calculation, as innovation cannot be predicted) that resulted from his agency's legal coercions that inhibit people from innovating and exchanging. Alas, if a government official attempted to produce a logical and thorough cost-benefit analysis for his program, he would have to be silenced by his very program, as it would be in those other officials' interests to not have their budgets cut.

Every government argument distorts the morality of duty and logic itself. Another reason for this is the universal truth that government decreases prosperity, or more precisely, inhibits the only known mechanisms that increase prosperity.

As Rothbard and many others have shown, the free market maximizes social utility, which means that coercion disrupts the price finding mechanisms of the free market, harming the prosperity of society. Furthermore, government intervention also hampers innovation by inhibiting points of comparison (competition), by inhibiting differing opinions opposed to the will of the politically powerful (at the moment), and by inhibiting necessary adjustments that only the free market can provide.

The unhampered market is free of self-created economic problems; it furnishes the greatest abundance consistent with man’s command over nature at any given time. But those who yearn for power over their fellows, or who wish to plunder others, as well as those who fail to comprehend the praxeological stability of the free market, may well push the society back on the hegemonic road -Rothbard ¹³

As such, when the government official argues for a new government endeavor or attempts to justify the existence of a current government endeavor, that official has to lie or express ignorance in order to produce that argument. For instance, in the digital market, the more obvious cases of these lies were "extremism" and "racism" while the more subtle were "monopolistic power" or "disenfranchised" (in terms of educating the impoverished youth). No amount of certification, formal protocols, or “official” licensing can change the fact that all government arguments are untrue, and all government actions produce a net harm.

Whether the statist is arguing for chastisement programs (the conservative) or beneficence programs (the liberal), such arguments are based on logical fallacy, economic ignorance, and ethical inconsistency. In fact, the only time a liberal or conservative can conduct a logically consistent and true argument is when he produces a counterargument to the other's fallacies (but he fails to apply that same analysis to his own statist claims). Such counterarguments, when grounded in consistent ethical reasoning or the true science of economics, are anti-political arguments. This is why there is no such thing as "political science"; there is no such thing as "political solutions"; there is no such thing as internally consistent "political analysis". Politics is manipulative, and the only solutions are anti-political.

In fact, let's examine what an honest political argument would look like for government. I will choose a conservative topic this time:

I want police. Now, I suspect that all of you do not want as much of this service that I want us to have. As a consequence, it is only fair that you are coerced into having this service to the extent to which I want it. Otherwise, you will not freely purchase as much police as I personally want society to have. Coercion-based policing will be more wasteful, less competent, and less innovative than private policing, but I cannot predict what the latter will be like, so I prefer society to be coerced for the former.
-statist Chase

Even an honest and informed argument for government must distort the principle of reciprocity.

The action of government results in oppression legally and inhibits growth economically.

The defense of government results in the loss of language and knowledge, as evidenced from the false academics in state-funded universities.

Back to our example above, society would certainly have private and charitable police if it had no State police; and it is worthwhile to examine some objective truths that we can define between the two.

1. Private police would result from the free exchange so it would honor the principle of reciprocity (morality of duty) because people would freely buy or freely decline more policing services. State policing, based on coercion, cannot do this.
2. We do not know to what extent private police would exist, except that it will obey the supply-and-demand principle. Since State policing cannot follow this principle, state policing will oscillate from being wasteful (too much Supply forced on the population) to being a shortage (too little Supply to meet Demand).
3. We do not know what specific future forms private policing will take because competition and innovation is unpredictable. We only know that State policing will stifle innovation, and thus, be less competitive.
4. Private policing will perform its function more competently than State policing as (empirical argument:) all private endeavors have been observed to perform more competently than State endeavors of a similar service, and (rational argument:) private policing would have the profit-and-loss incentive that State policing lacks.
5. Private policing will be less wasteful because (empirical argument:) all private endeavors have been observed to be less wasteful than State endeavors of a similar service, and (rational argument:) because resources are maximized in their utility on the free exchange.
6. State policing will hamper the ability of individuals to pursue the morality of aspiration (to improve themselves) since it takes from them by force; whereas they have an option in the private analogue.

And the most profound realization of all is that the argument above applies to all government endeavors vs private endeavors. Unlike the statist, who produces flawed arguments that even he does not believe are universally true, we can derive arguments that are generally true. And since this is the truth of government, then it has an incentive to degrade language in an attempt to maintain its privileged position (taking resources without having to fairly work for it).

Then why do people defend government?

Coercion can only exist by lying about itself. Indoctrination does not work unless language is degraded, and censoring (to stop ideas) would have little utility on a population without the ability to indoctrinate (to force ideas) . In order to have coercion, the State has to (1) degrade language, (2) indoctrinate, and then (3) censor. Some people defend the State out of indoctrinated ignorance (a topic thoroughly analyzed in The ARKA Journal's censorship, indoctrination, and propaganda directories). Other people defend the State out of the belief that they will be the masters that benefit from the coercion of the slaves.

The opportunists that would benefit from some State intervention (like the Duck Duck Go official, recently)¹² will profitably lobby for it and will be the first to believe their own lies since it is in their interests to do so. Duck Duck Go officials have participated in every step listed above by calling for State powers to be wielded against their natural competitors, ironically making Duck Duck Go the very entity that they believe their nemesis, Google, to be.

The lobbyist appears to be honoring the morality of aspiration since it is in his interests to do so. On the other hand, if some act requires dishonesty and/or a lack of critical thinking, which lobbying necessarily requires, then it may also be argued that lobbying is not the pursuit of the Good Life but is a twisted version of it. After all, the lobbyist is attempting to acquire success by wielding the force of the State rather than compete and reciprocate fairly for that success. He chooses t0 mulct his fellows a success comes at the expense of everyone else.

To highlight just how bizarre coercion is, let's examine which type of villain Duck Duck Go officials have become with our moral framework. On one hand, DDG officials are attempting to aspire at the cost of everyone else, making them the aspiration/duty villain – the Johnny Ringo, if you will. On the other hand, DDG officials are attempting to impose obligations (coercive powers of the state on the market) where they ought to not belong, making the DDG officials the duty/aspiration villain – the Professor Umbridge, if you will. Since the morality of aspiration and the morality of duty form a dichotomy and are mutually exclusive, a logically consistent person can only appeal to one over the other. To simultaneously appeal to the former over the latter and the latter over the former is more than just villainy; it is paradoxical villainy, which is why politicians seem so bafflingly inconsistent. Within politics, if the Father (aspiration / resiliency to shame / PMU) becomes dangerous, there is no Mother (duty / sensitivity to shame / ROE) to balance him, and vice versa. The Father is absent entirely, and the Mother is hateful.

Even the victims of government interventions/endeavors will propagate statist propaganda in the belief that it will benefit them. The State may take 10 coins unconditionally from citizens but give back 3 coins conditionally. The State will give those 3 coins back to those that satisfy the condition of compliant servitude. This happens in all forms of Statehood, but in democratic republicanism, that servitude is to vote for the representative that is promising to return those three coins to the loyal subject. This is what the welfare State is and democracy 101: loot society but give just enough back that you secure voters for the next election [the monarchist State is bad, but the democratic State is worse].

While the net interest of a citizen is to abolish the State intervention (and keep the 10 coins for all of society), the marginal interest of a citizen is to lobby for the conditional return of 3 coins. The marginal interest is still a net harm, but the subject often cannot conceive of another way and only sees the options of not receiving a portion of the conditional return or receiving a portion of the conditional return; the option of abolishing the intervention altogether is rarely considered. In other words, the loyal subject considers a "win" to be chosen by the coercive class for conditional returns and a "loss" to not be chosen by the coercive class for a conditional return.

As a result, the loyal subject gains "success" in life by believing logically flawed and manipulative arguments from his favorite State officials because it is in his marginal interests to do so. Stupidity and immorality, two traits that are punished on the free market, are incentivized in coerced society. This is politics vs anti-politics. The loyal subject is marginally rewarded for using language incorrectly. He is marginally rewarded for believing in the very propaganda that oppresses him.

This is why whenever a censorship technique is discovered, an indoctrination technique will be observed alongside it.

If logic (rationalism) alone does not suffice, allow me to reveal (empiricism) the corruption in an entire subfield of psychology.

On my pursuit to expose how information is controlled, I came face-to-face with psychology organizations that were indoctrinating people with statist propaganda, mostly by targeting the traumatized and those that fancy themselves as traumatized. I decided to conduct a review of every independent scientific study produced over the psychology of trauma and resilience.¹⁴ Within a 65-year period, there have been just over 50 sound independent empirical studies within this subfield, and the findings are not at all what one would suspect if mainstream narratives were to be believed.

The unofficial propaganda posits that people are hyper-sensitive to trauma-related illnesses and require institutional care (or more precisely, "parenting"). But the reality is that the vast majority of people are not capable of developing chronic PTSD. Only a small minority (4-14%) of people who encounter war, death, rape, and other extremes will benefit from trauma-treatments; these are the people that can develop chronic levels of PTSD. All others are best left alone clinically, even if they suffer from some PTSD. In fact, of the resilient, half do not benefit from treatment and the other half regress from treatment; yet the highly state-subsidized field would rather harm more people than it helps if state pawns are the result.

If there are no logically sound arguments for government, then is the statist a religious prophet?

Recall my challenge to present an argument for the State that does not rely on the ad hoc or any of the other logical fallacies I listed. If all claims made by the statist are untrue, then the credibility of the State relies merely on the neo-religious rituals referred to as "certification"; the rites of "formal licensing"; neo-Shamanistic credibility images in the form of suits and ties; and other visual appeals to credibility and respectability. If my challenge remains unfulfilled, then all statist claims are faith-based and therefore supernatural. Therefore, is the statist any better than a modern sorcerer participating in astrology or witchcraft? The only difference after all, is that one happens to wield powers of monopolized force.

A state-funded economist, with his convoluted mathematics that only he has the divine power to interpret (I have pointed out the mathematical errors across many neo-economists' formulas only to be met with hysterical outrage), is no more than a sorcerer of some supernatural experiment that has yet to be observed. He merely writes religious incantations that are meant to conjure up the prosperous government; and despite his fate to fail, he is paid to convince the world otherwise.

A state-funded lawyer, with his redefinition of words is no more than a spellcaster, perpetually mixing and convoluting the symbols we rely on in a futile attempt to conjure up the ethical government.

The difference between the statist and other religions is that most religions attempt to help humanity better understand their nature while statism attempts to distort human nature in an attempt to enslave humanity.

The austrian economists proved that:

Coercion → Loss of prosperity

The reality is much worse, because for us to reach that point, coercion had to have first been preached by its religious prophets:

The Act of Justifying Coercion → Degradation of Language → Indoctrination → Censorship … [repeat]

The Modern Control of Information book

[1] Fuller. "The Morality of Law." Storrs Lectures on Jurisprudence Yale Law School. 1963 print.

[2] Offield. "ShadowBanned". The ARKA Journal.

[3] Offield. "Indoctrination Mechanisms Online". The ARKA Journal.

[4] Offield. "An Indoctrination Technique on the World's Largest Platform." The ARKA Journal.

[5] Offield. "The Peers that Betrayed Us." The ARKA Journal.

[6] Offield. "America's Proxy Government." The ARKA Journal.

[7] Offield. "The False Agenda". The ARKA Journal.

[8] Offield. "A Hidden War on Free Speech: Google's Jigsaw". The ARKA Journal.

[9] Offield. "The World's Leading Brainwasher: Moonshot". The ARKA Journal.

[10] Offield. "America is not Racist". The ARKA Journal.

[11] Offield. "Information Control in America." The ARKA Journal.

[12] Offield. "Duck Duck Go's Unethical Strategy." The ARKA Journal.

[13] Murray N. Rothbard. "Man, Economy, and State with Power and Markets". Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 2nd edition. 2009.

[14] Offield. "A Tale of Suppressed Science: The Psychology of Trauma and Resilience". The ARKA Journal.

[15] Offield. "Why Corporate America is Woke." The ARKA Journal.