Government On Trial
Back when I was having my “adventures” with the federal extortion racket, I got to witness an interesting psychological phenomenon. I could explain in detail my own “legal” position and support it with plenty of evidence (yes, I know politician scribbles are bogus, and knew it back then), but it was still easy for the average spectator to assume that I couldn’t possibly be right, that there had to be something I was missing, that there had to be some solid counter-argument. In the end, fewer people were persuaded by my evidence and logic than were persuaded (in my favor) by seeing the OTHER side’s lame attempts to refute my position.
And so it will be with my “Government on Trial” project. You or I can explain why “government” is bogus — using logic, evidence and principles — and for thinking people, that will be enough. But a lot of people would simply assume that “the experts” must know better than uncredentialed wackos like you and me. They don’t need to actually HEAR a decent counter-argument to assume there must BE one. However, if they see a bunch of credentialed, educated statists — especially those who TEACH political mythology to others — stammering and evading, desperately trying in vain to be coherent or consistent, in response to simple, straight-forward questions, THAT is going to make a lot more people sit up and take notice.
By analogy, some martial artist can put on an exhibition in the ring. And yeah, it may look pretty, but up against a real fighter, in a real fight, would the guy immediately get trounced? That is why a mere MONOLOGUE about voluntaryism, however sound and logical it might be, can’t get the attention of nearly as many people as a DEBATE. That’s why I think this project will be so important. If anyone should be able to give a decent argument in favor of having a ruling class, it ought to be professors of law, civics, philosophy, etc. But of course, they can’t either. And showing the world that they can’t will be invaluable.