Hello dear Steemers and Steemerettes,
yesterday I had a conversation with a friend of mine. He joined the police force.
Yes, working for the government is wrong. But before you all go:
I would like to explore the difference between Fighting the State vs. Fighting People who work for the Government by dissecting this conversation.
"Isn't that the same?"
Nope. 5 years ago I would have said yes. Now I say: Fighting people is a waste of time. Fighting the atrocities of the State is not!
Just take a look at the following argumentation and decide which of them is easier to accept:
- Working for the government is wrong, because people don't choose the government service like a Netflix subscription. They have to pay for it, or go to jail.
- Since you are working for the government, why don't you just join your local mafia? I bet they pay better and you get to do the same shit: extorting people!
In my early days of being an anarchist, the second one was my kind of argumentation. Always head butting with everyone who dared to speak positive of governments or decided to work for them.
Yesterday I thought that I should not attack my friend as a person, but to question his reasoning behind this step.
"OK so? What were your questions?"
1. "Why did you choose to work for the police?"
First I needed to find out why. It's been a while since we talked. He got married, is planning to become a father and didn't wanted to go back to work in the food industry. He wants to make his neighborhood safer. Since he is not an anarchist, he thought a career in the police force would be the best and safest solution. He could provide for his family and also learn how to defend the people he cares about.
2. "Are there things that you don't consider wrong, but are not really legal?"
This was a tricky question for him, but he just said:
"I want to make my neighborhood safe. If someone doesn't initiate violence and just talks shit, I tell them to leave. I won't fill out a form because of slander. There are dangerous people out there, that need to be kept in check. I don't have time to waste."
3. "Do you know the difference between legal and just?"
And yes he did. He explained to me, that he started to read different books about law application which covered this topic. But he didn't have a real life example at hand. Unfortunately for him, I did ;)
To understand my example, we have to make a little detour:
Here in Germany, there is a new sort of tax. It's called Rundfunkbeitrag/GEZ which roughly translated means radio-transmission contribution. Every household has to pay around 20 Euros per quarter, because you are able to receive public television, radio shows and are able to access an online database with all material on demand. There are a lot of people who don't want to contribute because this is not optional. It is a fee that is cashed in separately and is mandatory. So a couple of weeks ago, a woman didn't pay up and went to jail for 60 days. The total sum that she "owed" was 500 Euros. Now she is out of employment and on social service, because no one hires a former female convict.
This is a link to a German video.
So back to my friend:
"People are going to jail for this shit. That is not acceptable. What would you do?"
-"Well, I have to uphold the law."
"So, you are saying that you would help to take someone into custody because they didn't pay up for the GEZ? You know you don't have to. There is a law about that."
-"It's the second amendment of the Grundgesetz."
"See you know what I'm talking about! My point is, some stupid politician decides on laws and whatever. But that is meaningless. You are the one to enforce the laws. Without the executive there is no law in real life. So I'm asking you. Would you put someone into jail, for not wanting to pay for television?"
long silence -"No, I would not."
"Your point being?"
When we are fighting the state, we are arguing against an imagined entity which does not exist in real life. Government employees are very real people, and are capable of rational thought.
There is no law to be upheld, if no one enforces it. People decide what is legal and what not. That's why you always have to argue against the state, and never against the people.
If you do the latter, you will quickly become an outcast and/or socially ostracized.
I look forward to discuss my crudely written thoughts with you in the comments :)
Keep on Steemin', Space Cowboys!
Sources:
Legal by pixabay.com
OMG Cat Meme by imgflip.com
While I love the point you made overall, I still think you are describing the same argument, just an indirect approach. Because the government is not actually a thing, it cannot commit atrocities. Only people acting as agents can commit atrocities. So attacking or arguing against the state is pointless. You must appeal to the actual individuals.
I believe what you mean to say is do not use accusations and personal attacks to make a point. Instead, employ the Socratic Method to get the person to reach the conclusion on their own.
Wow, you just nailed my point in a short paragraph. I'm still working on my writing style, but as you can see it's still lacking clarity.
Thank you for your feedback :)
I read it it like "we are all fighting". Let's stop now?
No, I don't mean "We are all physically fighting" I mean "We (anarchocapitalists/voluntarist etc.) are fighting for a better world with words"
Congratulations @lcshaft! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honnor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPBy upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!
good job.
i followed you, i hope you will follow me and upvote my posts : )