The State is Molech

A while back I posted the meme on this page and lately it has begun to spread on facebook, which is pretty cool. I posted this image with a description that reads as follows:

“The Phoenicians and Canaanites worshiped Molech and would perform child sacrifice by burning their children alive in order to please the god and have it protect and watch over them. That sounds really familiar to actions people do today… Something about preserving the Union… National defense… stuff like that…”

MolechStateOf course as ideas like this begin to spread, opposition arises. Unlike the statists however, I am more than comfortable rationally defending my ideas and answering criticism. On another facebook page called Christian Libertarians, some opposition and criticism arose. A guy by the name of Jacob Allen commented with the following “rebuttal”:

“Not really, no. Especially not with the all-volunteer force we’ve had for decades. Better comparison would be the link between child sacrifice and abortion, but that’s not a matter of the people vs State, but rather one of culture vs lives. Not something a Anarchy page is likely to share.”

For the record I’ll go down and say that I am against abortion (though I’m not in favor of empowering a bunch sociopaths in government the task of solving a moral issue I perceive). But that wasn’t even the point of this meme and it is irrelevant to the argument the image makes.There is a volunteer force these days, but the analogy still works. Many of the young men and women that sign up for the armed forces do so under the pretense of lies. Either they are joining under the fallacious and comic book like idea that the US is “the good guy” or, like naive children lured into a pedophile’s windowless van that says “free candy”, they want free college and good pay. What is the difference between sacrificing human life under false pretenses and forced conscription? The end result of young people dying for the interests of the political elite (while being disguised as protecting you) is still occurring. The meme still works another way too; Americans feel that they need to sacrifice the children of other people that live on the other side of an imaginary line drawn on a map by sociopaths in government. The third interpretation is that war and militarism is not cheap. It costs money. Children that are not even born yet are being sold into debt slavery so that moronic statists can feel safe today. Sure, the literal lives of these children are not being sacrificed, but the financial future and dreams of them are and these kids do not even get a say in the matter. The point is that no matter how you dice it, someone’s son or daughter is still being sacrificed in some way so that mentally unstable statists can feel secure in themselves now. Mr. Allen wasn’t finished being logically incoherent though. He said the following:

“…this meme is irrelevant, and this devolves into another ‘anything the State does is evil’ argument, or at best ‘war for any purpose is murder’. Neither of which is Biblical (this is a Christian Libertarian page after all), nor arguments that mean much to me. As somebody who’s been there and done that, I think that ‘disinformation’ has little to do with most enlistments. The average person enlisting is doing it to serve their country, or simply for a job. Hating the enemy because of misinformation is a minor point, and most people duped by that would probably have joined for other reasons as well.”

Now I will also go on record and say that my personal spiritual life and outlook is that of Christianity. And, as I will demonstrate, Christianity is very much compatible with Voluntaryism. There is plenty of reason (both in and outside of the religious texts) to conclude that the state is evil. First of all, it is a monopoly on the initiation of violence. Coercion is how the state accomplishes everything. Christ said to love God and lover your neighbor as yourself. How is coercing people loving them as yourself? If it is immoral for the individual then it is immoral for the collective (which is just a collection of individuals) no matter the fancy title they give themselves. Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, Matthew 22:36-40, and James 2:8, 9 talk about loving and treating others the way you would want to be treated. The beauty of this teaching is that it is so simple. Leave people and their things alone because coercing them isn’t loving! Somehow, the “spiritual and religious” statist finds a way of completely misunderstanding one of the most simple of lessons on ethics. One of my favorite Biblical passages comes from 1 Samuel. The Israelites essentially lived in tribal communities and for the most part, it was anarchic in nature. But these people wanted a king to rule over them. They were demanding that Samuel provide for them a ruler. Samuel however, understood what instituting a monopoly on coercion would entail; that this “security” would come at a high price. He said the following to the people in order to try and persuade them from going down this path in 1 Samuel 8:10-18:

“So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, ‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.'”

There are numerous other passages that cover how the Christian should remain skeptical of the state. I have covered this in episode 3 and episode 4 of the Logical Anarchy Today podcast. Not only that but Joe and myself had a great conversation with the gentlemen over at Altar and Throne about anarcho-capitalism and Christianity. Mr. Allen then gave a very revealing response:

“As I said, neither argument really means anything to me, and I’m not going to engage in one with you. You can post anything else you wish, I will not read it nor respond.”

This right here perfectly sums up the mental state of mind for statists. You can throw any fact or logical point at them and they will just ignore it if it does not conform to their 12 years of brainwashing they have endured. After this, Mr. Allen called for reinforcements and a gentleman by the name of Larry Newsom arrived. The thing about statism is that it doesn’t matter how much you have in the way of reinforcements. If your ideas are terrible, any varying quantity of people making the same bad arguments will do little to help your cause. Larry asked whether or not he was a “sacrifice” since he volunteered for military service knowing the danger. We’ve covered this already up above. He then made this great remark:

“So we have no right to a national defense? Should we just lay down now and embrace all invaders?”

It’s funny how statists think there are only two options. The first is violence within the supposed chaos of freedom. The second is the violence perpetrated by the state. The concept that people can solve problems non-violently doesn’t even enter their minds.I’m reminded of a Bastiat quote:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Defense is essentially insurance with the price one pays for protection a premium. Defense, like any other kind of insurance, can be freely bought and sold on the market. Hans-Herman Hoppe has a great essay that explains this concept. So no, people wouldn’t be without defense. It would just be paid for like any other good bought and sold on the market. If you would like to learn more about protection and defense within an voluntary society, I suggest checking out our paid downloads, in particular the Intro to Anarchism ones. The fact is that this burden of proof should not be on the voluntaryist but on the person advocating for statism. The chaos of anarchism is conjectural (and easily rationally argued away). The state’s failures are empirical and factual. The question isn’t why freedom but why statism with its poor record of keeping anyone safe. Larry then made this great comment:

“I will never argue that statism works. Ever. However, the constitution clearly states that part of the federal governments job is to ‘provide for the common defense’. And, if we privatized the defense industry, wouldn’t we STILL be sending children off to die as sacrifice? Doesn’t that negate the entire sanctimonious argument?”

The confusion runs deep with these ones. Somehow arguing for statism isn’t arguing for statism? I’m reminded of another quote, this time by Lysander Spooner:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

No one finds it ironic that a constitutional government founded on the principle of limiting government has created the largest empire the world has ever known? The US has a military presence in all but 46 nations last I checked. It spends more on the military than the next 8 nations combined. The constitution failed. While it is an interesting historical document, it has proved disastrous. As to Larry’s second argument that in a privatized defense situation, we would still be sacrificing people… Well… That is just flat out incorrect. Without central banks creating money out of thin air in order to pay military contractors and other such expenses that massive continual war requires, a free society with sound money will have true market prices on the wages of a “soldier” as well as the equipment and machinery involved. Fiat currency was a boon to the statists ideology. The ability to steal, in a subversive manner, the purchasing power of the populace without them knowing what is exactly going on was genius on their part. Sound money means that defense/insurance firms would have to pay the true cost of initiating violence against others (the consumer trust they must earn in a competitive market and the monetary costs as well). It is much cheaper to offer defense than the associated cost of starting conflict in a competitive market. Since there would be sound money and no coercive monopoly on violence, unborn future generations are now no longer born into debt slavery. Their futures are no longer sacrificed to the giant Molech of today that is the state. An institution that, in the name of protecting your life, liberty and property takes all three to support this “protection” it claims you so desperately need.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *