Today I would like to examine two phrases that I lovingly refer to as products of the “lingual gag reflex.”  These phrases correspond to a series of sounds which are intended to convey some point, allegedly in opposition to ideas challenging a political status quo.  In reality, however, even though the words are commonly uttered or typed with great conviction, it is quite difficult to attach them to anything coherent.  For all intents and purposes, these lines truly are a lingual gag reflex, spewed passionately in the face of anyone who strikes a particular nerve but failing to rest upon any substantial meaning.

What are these phrases?  I’ll tell you:

“[My country]: love it or leave it.  No one is making you live here.”

“[Oppressive Institution/Program/Policy X] is necessary for the greater good.”

Love It or Leave It!

The first phrase is commonly offered in debates between anarchists and statists.  Depending upon the sophistication of the parties involved, it often takes the form, “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.”  Also common (specifically in reference to the U.S.) is the heartfelt claim that citizenship is voluntary, therefore government is voluntary.  Since it is voluntary, you consent to be governed by living here, and so on.  Frequently, links to information regarding renunciation of citizenship are provided for the anarchists’ benefit.

The statist who proceeds down this path of thought makes a number of errors, but I’m most concerned with one assumption.  That assumption is the anarchist’s consent to rule based on an arbitrary standard: existence.  Being born on a patch of dirt equals implicit consent (i.e. implicit acceptance of the social contract), therefore claims of oppression are invalid in the absence of any attempt to renounce citizenship or at least leave the country.  This assumption is ridiculous, of course, because any number of factors might be in play.

• The anarchist might lack the means to relocate himself.

• He might, as is increasingly the case in the slowly-militarizing United States, have problems with passports and other documentation.

• He might have a family that he cannot afford to relocate, or a family with members who have their own reasons for being unable to move.

• There are no anarchist commonwealths to which an anarchist might travel, so insisting that he “love” or “leave” the statist’s nation is tantamount to a non-argument, an absurd claim meant to end discussion rather than offer a rational defense for the forcing of a system upon the anarchist.  The anarchist might very well realize this and, by extention, realize there is no point in moving.  Wherever he goes, people will offer the same “love it or leave it” demand when he objects to being tyrannized by their government.  Even if one might be fully capable of renouncing his or her masters in some nebulous sense, doing so is likely to have no practical effect, as the renouncing individual will either still be subject to his former government due to land monopoly, or he will be subject to some other government upon leaving.

Just think of the strangeness intrinsic to this position.  Jews in Nazi Germany consented to torture and death camps.  Palestinians in Gaza consent to terrorism at the hands of the Israeli military, and likewise Israelis consent to rocket attacks and terrorism by Islamic fanatics.  Any individual or group that has been oppressed, tortured or killed by any other individual or group sovereign in the region where the event(s) occurred is “consenting” to oppression, torture and murder simply by way of being there.  This is what “implied consent” entails.  As such, a determined aggressor can derive the “consent” of his victim from just about anything.

The Greater Good!

What is the “greater good?”  Does the phrase mean anything at all?  Since both terms require subjective value judgments, I don’t think it’s possible to arbitrarily classify anything as “good” and then dub it “greater” on some equally arbitrary standard.  A woman being gang-raped is clearly in the minority.  Is her plight for the “greater good?”  Certainly not, I hope.  There’s nothing “good”at all from her perspective, in all likelihood, and it is doubtful that she will be assuaged by the “good” from her assailants’ viewpoints.

“That’s not fair!” cries the statist.  “The woman is a minority in that situation, but the rapists are the minority in society.”

Notable objection, and that might be true, but it only serves to highlight the arbitrariness.  At what point is the line drawn?  At what point does so-called “legitimate” majoritarian rule become so-called “illegitimate” majoritarian rule?  One might say that society is the only majority that counts, but even then the majority is arbitrarily limited based on imaginary lines in the dirt.  If the will of a majority makes “right,” then it is arbitrary to claim that any given majority is exempt from this.  A woman being in the minority compared to the rapists is no different than a tax-resisting individual being in the minority compared to the armed mercenaries at his door (and those who support and enable those mercenaries).  Furthermore, a woman who “consents” to rapists in fear of her life might be accurately likened to an individual who “consents” to taxation in fear of his life, well-being and/or possessions.

Saying that someone consents to a proposition or action under the threat or actuality of violence does one of two things.  It either renders the term “consent” meaningless, as something like consensual sex becomes such simply by one party threatening harm upon the other, or the term “consent” needs to be understood as a synonym for “surrender” or “submission.”  In fact, if “surrender” or “submission” more accurately reflects what statists mean when they claim someone “consents” to a government by existing under it, then I think it would serve for clearer discussion if they would use those terms instead.

So we’re left with the “greater good” being a reflection of one arbitrary majority’s will and the means by which they seek to sate that will, usually by compelling the minority opposition to submit or surrender under the threat or use of violence.

The problem here is that, even if the arbitrariness of defining a so-called legitimate majority is overlooked, there is no sensible way by which a government can possibly hope to accurately do the will of that majority.  Governments cannot properly allocate resources, as Ludwig von Mises demonstrated nearly a century ago.  How then can these same entities be expected to read minds and create rules accordingly?  Interestingly enough, free markets and free association between agents serve as very good solutions to this problem.

So when these arguments come up:

“[My country]: love it or leave it.  No one is making you live here.”

“[Oppressive Institution/Program/Policy X] is necessary for the greater good.”

…I think it’s fair to kindly inform the wielder that he/she is not making any sense.