State-ianity

When we address the atheist community about the evils of the state and our proposition for anarchy, we often hear the same scoffing remark - you have a belief, it's like a religion. Every time I hear this I die a little inside. Have these people not heard the same kind of argumentation before? Haven't they had a Christian point his finger at them and claim that "atheism is your religion"? I know I've heard it. It's ironic, then that a group that rejects one belief system accuses another group that does the same to be wrong-headed and following a "religion".

Anarchy is obviously not a religion in the same way that atheism isn't a religion. They're both rejections of a claim, neither explicitly defining anything apart from the mythical creatures and motives being demolished. When discussing the free market as a replacement for government, we are merely speaking of the natural means of cooperating and interacting with the rest of society.

But the point I would like to make in this post is that statism, not anarchy, is similar to monotheistic religion, with the State as its godhead.

The State is seen by many, even if not admitted as so, as being omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent, much like the Christian god. It is capable of knowing when people are doing something wrong, something illegal (sin), exploiting others, etc. It is seem as capable of stopping people from doing harmful things to themselves and to others, is capable of crushing all opponents and is seen as the bearer of truth and justice. It is also considered to be all-good in its conquest to crush immorality and illegality, to better the environment, making lots of jobs, helping the poor, etc. And like the Christian omni-all god, it suffers terrible contradictions in definition, because an entity that wields such power will not be all-good, nor will it be likely to be all-knowing.

Like gods, the State isn't held to the same moral level as everyone else. It is given special privilege and power that one must not question. We cannot judge people for their actions, but the State can. We cannot steal from people because it's immoral, but it is perfectly fine for the State to do it because it always has a plan for our betterment. The State works in mysterious ways, after all.

There's the ridiculous idea that without a State, people would act immorally - there'd be no basis for morality anymore. Sound familiar? Atheists, by the same logic, should supposedly be lacking in morality because they don't believe in a god. Why should we think that the lack of a government would suddenly make us all murderers? If all that's keeping you from committing immoral acts is the State, you have issues.

Letters to congressmen could easily be paralleled to prayers, in that lots of people send their desires and wishes to a fictitious image of a caring deity and few will ever get answered. In fact, I would propose that the odds of the contents of your letter being fulfilled are about the same as prayer. About half the time, you'll have guessed right.

Neither belief system respects the principles of voluntaryism. People are expected to obey the laws and whims of the State, or face punishment. It doesn't matter if you believe in or approve of the State to begin with, you're supposed to be damned for making light of its rules. It rules by a sort of divine decree - if the government has determine such an act to be bad, it is suddenly punishable, regardless of its objective moral implications. If you sin against the State, you will be punished with imprisonment (with a likely raping), fined, executed, or any combination.

Claims of necessity of the state are often supported by the view of the majority - most people think government is necessary, most people think that the State exists as a real and meaningful entity, rather than being a mechanism for people to exploit one another. Both are upheld by a majority-decision on their existence and benevolence.

Anarchy is unlike a god, in that it is a rejection of State-belief, acknowledgment that the State doesn't solve problems well, supports voluntaryism, acknowledges that morality can't be legislated through majority rule nor one man's decree, and holds everyone to the same standard of morality (dependence on universality).

I think atheists use this tactic because it's far easier to dismiss ideas if you convince yourself that they are crazy religious fantasies, not grounded in the real world. They'd rather not address the real content of the questions, preferring to subvert the doubting questions as a Christian would to that bit of evidence that suggests the Bible isn't quite accurate. It's also hard to confront a belief that you were engrained with from an early age. Any ex-Christians should be familiar to at least some extent with this issue.

And finally, like religion, belief that the State is actually looking out for our best interests and will listen to our pleas and offerings is a means to make ourselves feel like we're in control over everybody else - much as religion has always been a means of trying to control the forces of nature. It's much nicer to feel as if you have this supreme being trying to make your life better, a being with a vested interest in your life. And just like Christianity, it doesn't take much searching to find out that the teachings and history of the institution lie in direct contradiction to these ideals.