Why I Don't Like to Discuss Politics with Friends

...[A] man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure. -Lysander Spooner-No Treason.

Clausewitz’s dictum—”War is the continuation of politics by other means”—is generally accepted; but the converse—”Politics is the continuation of war by other means”—also holds. -Gerard Radnitzky-"Is Democracy More Peaceful than Other Forms of Government."

Most of my friends do not know that I am a radical libertarian and they do not know that I am blogger. Frankly, they don't have a clue as to what my political beliefs are. I would guess that they assume I am a Democrat because I am a black male. That's the impression I got during the Holy One's inauguration. No one asked me, "Did you vote for Obama?" For whom else would I vote? No one asked me, "Did you see the inauguration speech?" What else would I have done on January 20, 2009? No one asked me, "Aren't you hopeful now that Bush is gone and Obama is now the first African-American president?" What other expectation ought I to have?

And if I were asked these questions, my answers would have been, "No, I don't vote," "Yes, a little bit," and "What little hope I have is in the Lord only. Man cannot save." If I were to have replied such, I don't know what would have happened next. Given the emotional catharsis of many blacks around the nation who never thought they would live to see the day that a black man became president, my guess is that I would have lost several friends. With slavery and Jim Crow in our history, the rise of a black man to the highest position of power in the world appears to be the apex of African-American history. Since blacks in this country have been severely miseducated about the true nature of the State and the false god Democracy, they simply don't know any better.

However, from my radical point of view, January 20, 2009, was the nadir of our history, for on that day a black man took control of the most dishonest, insane, and intolerable government I have ever experienced. He proved that he was a more efficient liar, thief, and potential murderer than John McCain and has already demonstrated his efficiency in all three areas since taking office. He is a communist and the only real question worth considering is Does he have temerity to murder his opponents as Stalin did? His administration does not even hide its authoritarianism. While blacks resisted chattel slavery as much as they could, today they have embraced political slavery at the hands of the first black president as if it were freedom. The mindsets of chattel slaves and political slaves are radically different. Chattel slaves knew that they were slaves; (most) political slaves think that they are free. Thus, there will be little resistance as Obama relieves us of what little liberty we have left. We will become slaves to the State while singing "We shall overcome."

This political difference, however, regards a single person. The more profound reason I tend to avoid discussing politics with friends is because politics is simply war by other means. If I were to debate a liberal friend who wanted universal health care, then his argument is essentially as follows: "I believe that health care is of such importance I will advocate that armed men compel you to support this system financially." If I were to debate a conservative friend who believes in empire building, then her argument is essentially as follows: "I believe that nation building is of such importance I will advocate that armed men compel you to support this system financially." This is the nature of all political discussion save that of radical libertarians who believe in non-aggression.

Most people are not aware of this when they discuss politics, but for members of the Remnant who are deeply in touch with our natural rights, such words pierce our souls. We have said nothing nor done anything which would deserve such treatment. Indeed, what do we radicals advocate but peaceful relationships among men; the end of all aggression especially the most brutal aggressor, the State; the freedom to produce and exchange with whomever we wish; the freedom to choose our own form of protection; and the freedom to form our own communities to live out our values in peace. Just what is so offensive and so threatening about our agenda? Upon hearing our argument, why would anyone still advocate soldiers and police compel us to submit to a government we do not want?

The question, then, is How do you maintain friendships with people who have implicitly told you they have no problem with armed men threatening to beat, imprison, or kill you because you disagree with their political agenda? If I were to have a debate with David Duke in which he argued that blacks were innately inferior, do you think that he could simply end the conversation with an affable, "Let's agree to disagree then. How about we get together for golf this weekend?" Should I just reply, "Well, Mr. Duke, I certainly disagree with your belief that 'all niggers are only good for picking cotton,' but that's your opinion. How about we meet at 10?" Yet when we discuss politics with friends we are supposed to ignore the fundamental truth that our friends have no problem with political slavery as long as their candidate is the master.

I do believe that many people have a visceral understanding of this fact. This is why there is so much acrimony in politics today. Politics has the power to break up families, and it should have that power. Politics is simply war by other means. But the American public has been so rigorously indoctrinated to believe the myth of political unity, they cannot see any other way out at this moment. They believe that the strength of the country is unity and they prefer unity over freedom. If our "unity" were truly voluntary to the last man standing, I would say this is good. However, unity in this country was acheived through bayonets in 1865, and many people see such as a good thing.

As the empire continues to crumble around us, my hope is that the soil of my friends' minds will become more fertile and receptive to our message. There is no guarantee, of course. Frank Chodorov could be correct that some people are simply born statists. But I am still waiting for a fruitful moment to sow seeds of liberty. In the meantime, I will continue to strengthen the Remnant and fight the anonymous statists from this blog and friendly statists in person when necessary.

Comments

[Vijay]

I don't know who you are, but this is one of the most heroic things I've read this year. Thank you. Brilliant post!

[Stephan Kinsella]

Brutus--heroic.

But sometimes I do confront them. If they get up in my face, I give them a line that while they pretend to be civilized and respect my opinion, they will go ahead and use force to take my money.

I told one "Doug Mataconis" something similar --in his post he whined about "police states" -- but since he's not an anarchist, and probably not even a minarchist, I told him http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/23/milwaukee-police-chief-says-to-hell-with-the-constitution/#comment-65716 :

"All states are police states of one form or another, and all devolve and get worse. So any libertarian who endorses the state — who is not an anarchist, who shuns “extremism — is supporting this and has no grounds to complain about police states."

He replied:

“I am, quite honestly, sick of libertarians — whether they come from the anarchist side of the aisle, the gold-bugs, or the hard-core Objectivists — who tell me that unless I agree with them I’m not a “real libertarian.””

My reply http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/23/milwaukee-police-chief-says-to-hell-with-the-constitution/#comment-65746 :

"Yeah? Well I’m sick of paying the g-dd-mned taxes foisted on me by the state you endorse, and to pay for the wars you think are justified. So I think we’re far more than even. In fact, I’ll trade you: you pay my taxes for me, and you can call me “not a real libertarian” to your heart’s content. Deal?

Maybe you ought to stop objecting to “extremism” (read: principle) and endorsing war (and its concomitant taxation and collateral damage) by our criminal state, if you don’t like libertarians (who differ on these things) noting this fact."

And: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/23/milwaukee-police-chief-says-to-hell-with-the-constitution/#comment-65770 :

"Doug, I’d rather you not respect my different opinion, and instead not tax me. I mean, it’s cheap to let me complain, while you go ahead and get your way and take my taxes. This is the problem with the state: it steals from and dominates people. How can you support it, as a libertarian?"

[Orual]

Nice post. Nothing to add, or take away. It's just good. Thanks for that.

[Redman]

Go, Brutus! Would that more thought as you do and then defend those thoughts like you. Good job; thanks for your contributions. I look forward to more from you on a regular basis.

For the Remnant!

[Jeremy@jeremyweiland.com]

As somebody who used to cultivate an attitude of indignation and outrage about the politics of my friends/family, I've started to emphasize connecting with people who seem receptive and thoughtful. As the empire decays, it's going to be important for all of us to start reproducing a civil society by knowing our neighbors, our families, and other individuals whom we can begin to build trust. People change their politics on their own fickle terms; appeals to logic and brilliant arguments don't hold a candle to being trusted by another, and somebody they go to when they're ready for a different approach to the human condition.

[Libby Snipp]

Thank you for a great post.

My main feeling reading through this is joy for finding such a thoughtful summary consistent with my own beliefs. But at the same time I also feel sorry for your friends. Why do you believe you would lose friends by answering questions honestly? For the same reasons you say you avoid political discussions with friends and family, I engage in them.

If your friends would shun you for stating your thoughtful opinions, why would losing them be a bad thing?

Thanks again-- I'm glad to add your blog to my reading list!

Libby

[Brutus]

Thanks for the compliments, all.

Libby,
You make some very good points. I get pretty heated when talking about the State so I find myself having to practice a lot of restraint. If I am having a discussion over email, I can edit my remarks and not say the first thing that flies out of my mouth.

At this point in the year, I'm not sure what my friends would think. However, I do think that after Obama's inauguration, any negative comment on my part would have been interpreted as a betrayal of the race and I would have been ostracized. Now, though, I think that I can begin sowing some seeds of liberty when political discussions arise. But you are correct that I may have to risk losing some friends anyway.

[Vinnie]

I've never read anything else from you but wanted to say THANKS!
I just left my facebook page feeling absolutely disgusted about seeing all my friends and families pages turning into battlegrounds because they're so desperate to impose their political opinions on each other.
It was a breath of fresh air to read this article. Brlliant!! I'll be back looking for more.

[Vinnie]

(I really do know how to spell "brilliant" by the way)