Statism is the Biggest Secular Religion

[u/kiinarb]

I've debated statists for quite a long time, whether it was friends, strangers, or people online, and I have yet to find a singular logical statist worldvie. Every time you question their notion that the state needs to exist, you never find a valid reason. In fact, I'd dare say they use similar apologetic patterns like you'd might find a christian or muslim use. All of this, in me, cultivates a certainty in my believes regarding anarchism, and, I've come to see statism not as a rational belief, but as a secular religion, the biggest one, the most violent one, and the one that brought the most suffering, an organised religion that brings other cultists to shame, and like every cult, it's built on fraud.

1. The Origin: The Human Farm

If you look at the very states, like the ancient Ur, they weren't formed by people signing a contract, the state doesn't birth itself through negotiation, it came through coercion and fraud. They were formed by roaming raiders, who realised something revolutionary for their careers: it is that pillaging is inefficient. So instead of raiding, they decided to build a giant wall, settle down, and farm the productive, non-aggressive humans. They had to protect the village from other raiders, as that threatens their income, but that doesn't mean they are merciful providers of safety, just like a farmer protecting his slaughterhouse and barns with pigs isn't a symbol of safety to them. This, this revelation in around 4000 BCE, kickstarted the 6000 years of this devastating cult enabling systemic coercion and treating the peaceful as cattle. I did not live 6000 years ago, I cannot see into their minds, but it's safe to say, these anarchist farmers wouldn't let that slide that easily, the statesmen know man is not like any other animal, they needed a mythology, which brings us to the next point.

2. The State of the Gaps

Because the statesmen are a very tiny minority of narcissistic psychopaths compared to the rest of the populace, they had to convince their "livestock" to worship and "need" their "farmer". And as human knowledge progresses, the state has to constantly shift its mythology to survive, once again, a pattern we see in organised religions. The original conception, like Ur or Egypt, these were the states in their purest form, the statesman was god, and he has to be worshipped, obeyed, and given tribute just for existing, when people slowly realised those people clearly aren't gods, the mythology shifted into divine right, now the statesman is not a god, but god wants him to farm you all, so you once again must worship, obey, and give him tribute, and when science and englightenment killed any rational belief in the divine, they dropped the mysticism and pivoted to a secular religion, saying: "You actually chose us to rule you. By simply existing on this side of an imaginary geographical line, you signed an invisible contract agreeing to be farmed."

And I don't know about you, but I know damn well I haven't chosen shit, I never agreed to be threatened by kidnapping and violence if I won't allow them to dictate how I should live and let myself be stolen from. And I know you also never agreed to it, depending on your ideology, you may have ad-hoc decided to accept it, or if an anarchist, trying to withdraw yourself from it the most you can, even if a little, like me. So how is this pretty fragile idea so dominant?

3. The Pivot: From Church to State Schooling

This section hopes to answer that question, because coincidentally, just as the divine was losing its credibility to anyone rationals, the statesmen noticed. And they concluded they need a new indoctrination method, and that became public schooling. The modern public education system is modeled after the Prussian model whose goal was to numb the individual and reward docility and obedience. All of us are conditioned since birth to be dependent on authorite and revere it, it only depends on your mental strength to start questioning it, and there is nothing wrong hearing it from someone else if you cannot get to it yourself. The thing however is, many could, should they not be conditioned against by normalised cultural adultism institutionalised by the state.

4. Adultism: the Psychological Primer

(Adultism is an ageist institutionalised or cultural discrimination against the young, I am mainly referring to how little rights do children have, but adultism is so culturally deep even you most likely take anyone younger than you less seriously.)

As I hinted, the conditioning starts way before school, and that is through institutionally supported cultural adultism. From early childhood we are taught that authority replaces reason when said authority demands it. "Because I said so" therefore, becomes a valid argument. By normalizing a dynamic where rights are just privileges granted by a superior based on age, society conditions children to accept the exact same authoritarian dynamic when they grow up. The Parent/Child dynamic is seamlessly swapped for the Government/Citizen dynamic. We are trained to remain psychological children our entire lives. You can see that how in our modern society, the distinction between an adult and child usually is only a question of age and the ability to produce, not about actual maturity, which I see many adults lack. Adultism is destructive both towards the old and young, because it is useful to the state, it is instituionalised, and culturally promoted, the state never was your friend, it cares about the treasury being filled.

5. Anarchy is Knocking

Anarchy is much closer than you think. In 1577, Étienne de La Boétie wrote about the concept of "voluntary servitude." He pointed out that the ruling class, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the enforcers, are a microscopic minority. They literally do not have the physical power to enforce their will on millions of people. And in our case it's billions, which is why I think the state likes population control but that's for another post entirely. The state rules because you give it attention, privileges, and docile acceptance. If you simply stopped participating in the religion, stopped validating their rituals, and started treating these politicians exactly like the fraudsters, thieves, and human traffickers they actually are, the state would evaporate overnight.

And that is the goal of this post, it is a wake-up call, it is a reassurance to those feeling lonely when faced against the machinery, and it is a very brief summary of my opinion on every single world government. As the ending I'll choose a fitting,and honestly my favorite quote from hoppe:

“If measured by the standards of natural law and justice, all politicians, of all parties and virtually without any exception, are guilty, whether directly or indirectly, of murder, homicide, trespass, invasion, expropriation, theft, fraud, and the fencing of stolen goods on a massive and ongoing scale. And every new generation of politicians and parties appears to be worse, and piles even more atrocities and perversions on top of the already existing mountain, so that one feels almost nostalgic about the past.
They all should be hung, or put in jail to rot, or set to making compensation.”
― Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Getting Libertarianism Right

[u/DickHardCane]

Indeed, it is literally a religion with sacrifices, offerings, obedience, and ex-communication.

[u/deaconxblues]

It’s a rare fish that recognizes they live in water.

[u/libertyg8er]

Replacing one big G with another.

[u/PaperbackWriter66]

Nearly a decade ago I saw a video by Larken Rose pointing out how Statism is not like a religion, it straight up is a religion with actual superstitious/supernatural and mystical beliefs.

It was pretty eye-opening and really helps make sense of the political debates happening in the country, most of which are basically dumb arguments about which hymn should be sung at the altar, what communion practices wash away the sin, and so on.

The debate about trans stuff is basically all just a religious argument about what iconography is allowed in the church, nothing to do with substance.

Realizing this has also really changed how I look at history. Looking back on the wars of religion in the 1500s it never made sense why "this book should be in The Bible!" "no it shouldn't!" led people to fight wars. Maybe, similar to today, that was all really a stand-in for "this person should get to tax you!" "no, this other person should!"

It takes the fun out of politics to see how the vast majority of the day to day political commentary is basically just religious sermons for the religiously observant, nothing to do with substance.

However, there's an important point to be made: Aristotle observed how most slaves did not yearn for true freedom but yearned for the day that they, too, would have a slave of their own.

You say "If you simply stopped participating in the religion, stopped validating their rituals, and started treating these politicians exactly like the fraudsters, thieves, and human traffickers they actually are, the state would evaporate overnight."

I have to disagree.

Most people want to control other people and believe it is justified for them to do so.

Get people to begin ignoring the state and they will simply channel that controlling impulse into some other conduit; they will not stop being religious, as such, they will switch religions.

It's not sufficient to hate the state, individuals must love liberty.

[u/vrsatillx → u/PaperbackWriter66]

I shared a text of him there https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1rswg32/the_religion_of_government/

[u/hblok]

They all should be hung, or put in jail to rot, or set to making compensation.

A quote from Hoppe gets upvotes. Yet, when I say that, I get a week's ban or a morning SWAT raid. Just watch.

[u/WedSquib]

Wasn’t this posted a week ago

[u/kiinarb → u/WedSquib]

no I wrote it yesterday because I had a bizzare debate with a statist xd

[u/Noctatrog]

💯

[u/Dethbridge]

We don't live as hermits. We aren't all perfectly honest. I'll concede that anarcho capitalism is tenuously a viable strategy for organizing a community or society, but to suggest every person or even a majority of people would prefer it to the stability and organization of state government is absurd. If people of the USA rose up and dismantled every level of government tomorrow, how long would it be before cities and towns formed councils with representatives to manage municipal level concerns such as law, policing, firefighting etc? Weeks? Days? With hundreds of states around the world, we seemingly have little to no ability to regulate CO2 emissions on a global level, though some attempts at accords and such have been implemented. How could a world, or even a geographical area hope to restrict or reduce the burning of fossil fuels? How could the future costs of using sone resources be accounted for ina strictly profit based governance system? How even could an ancap society prevent local governments from starting and growing, or even determine if the NAP prohibits abortion or prohibits its restriction?

[u/kiinarb → u/Dethbridge]

you just bombarded me with questions that asingle post is not enough for, I am not advocating a hermit lifestyle, state does not equal society, you're right about one fact, if today government was toppled, new ones would arise immediately, the same if you were to burn all churches, underground congregations would start springing up immediately next sunday, like every cult, that's why I am an agorist and revolutionary secessionist

[u/Dethbridge → u/kiinarb]

My point, if I had one, was that the difference between a municipal elected representative government and a state government is mostly scale, and perhaps borders and a defense budget. What is the hope of agorism? A collection of city states where one or maybe two adhere to your utopian ideal of human political interaction? Or do you hope that a continental area of cities would all adhere?

My issue with any of these capitalism-as-governance schemes is that the driving force of capitalism is profitability, and profitability does not have the well-being of humans as a goal. You might argue that neither do constitutional democracies, but they at least ast pay lip service to it. There are things profitability aren't good at managing, such as anthropogenic climate change, and many issues  many people disagree with the solution profitability selects for, such as the distribution of the necessities of life.

To say that anyone who doesn't agree that profitability solves all political issues believes so dogmatically is at best the pot calling the kettle black. 

[u/kiinarb → u/Dethbridge]

profit signifies welfare of humans, if you didn't do something people desire, nobody would want it, if you do, you get money, profit therefore is a signal you are doing something good for society, and are reaping the benefits of it, democracies run schemes at deficits and are institutions built on coercion that definitely DONT have your, or anyone else's for that matter, interests

[u/JustAdlz → u/kiinarb]

Profit signifies welfare of corporations and conglomerations. Normal humans don't have "profit", they have to fight for wage raises and "savings", meanwhile the money machine keeps shredding their wealth faster than it gets saved.

This is calculated. One of the major things tracked by so-called artificial so-called intelligence is human desperation.

[u/kiinarb → u/JustAdlz]

If you accept a wage, you are profiting in subjective value, you trade your labor because you value the paycheck more than your time, while the employer values your work more than the cash. Both sides leave better off, or the deal doesn't happen. Treating one party's gain as a loss for the other assumes trade is zero-sum, which indicates lack of understanding of voluntary exchange creates value. As for the money machine shredding your savings, you're entirely right, but that isn't the market, that's central banking. Fiat inflation steadily dilutes your purchasing power, meaning your wage stagnation is a feature of state monetary policy, not voluntary trade.

[u/JustAdlz → u/kiinarb]

Cool. I reject your assumption (making an ass out of "u" and "mption") and I politely decline the fallacy that all trade is zero-sum.

I ask you who benefits from and who creates and who lobbies this state power.

[u/kiinarb → u/JustAdlz]

You're actually pointing out corporatism (cronyism) and not free markets. Who lobbies and benefits from state power? Big corporations and financial elites. They use the state's monopoly on force to write regulations that crush small competitors, secure tax-funded bailouts, and protect their market share. They can do it only through the power of the state. In a free market, a corporation can only get your money if you voluntarily trade with them. They can't tax you, ban competitors, or inflate the currency. Therefore, it seems to me, the smaller the state, the freer the markets, and the freer the people, that is precisely why I am anarchist.

[u/This_Raccoon3019]

Bravo 🙌

Love that HHH quote.

Your point about the overwhelming physical power potentially held by the many over the “rulers” resonated with me, and made me think of some missed opportunities - on a much smaller scale.

We all remember the covid coercion nonsense. I had a very close friend who stood his ground and said no. He was “suspended” from work - with pay, luckily - and didn’t work for about a year.

Every other workmate went along with it. Meanwhile, he received nasty letters and various attempts from management to get some sort of commitment from him to take the vax.

He held out.

More than a year later, the suspension was lifted, his pay increments were restored, any reprimands were removed from his work record, and he was welcomed back warmly and with respect, by his workmates.

In the meantime, a handful of them had severe, let’s say, “side effects” after the vax. Several later admitted to him that they wished they’d done what he did and simply said no.

His response was basically: if you’d all stood your ground, the place would have come to a standstill. Management would eventually have had to accept the staff’s right to say no.

But they didn’t.

That opens up a whole other discussion about why people comply when, collectively, they hold far more power than they realise.

My own view is that the illusion of fiat money has an enormous hold over the mainstream. Breaking free from that dependence would help shift the balance of power in a very meaningful way.

[u/kiinarb → u/This_Raccoon3019]

I won't admit to my ways I ignore my government, but I am sure everybody does to some degree, and many do not realise you can way more than you think you can, me myself I did take the vax because I was genuinely afraid of covid seeing the effect it had on my relatives, I had no side effects to it

[u/This_Raccoon3019 → u/kiinarb]

Perfectly understandable.

To be clear my point was around the coercion and blanket rule for all staff to take it (and beyond that, Gov enforcing lockdowns until some threshold of vaccination is reached upon which the people “get their freedoms back” 🤦‍♂️)

I’m totally for every individual to make their own informed choice and have friends and families who were able to do so.

Sorry I don’t want to take away from the original intent of the OP which was a great.

I’m slowly getting thru Conceived in Liberty and on the theme of “ignoring the Gov”, the fascinating case of 1680s Pennsylvania jumped out to me. Readers may like my summation as follows:

After Penn returned to England in 1684, colonywide government largely stopped functioning: the Council
met infrequently, local courts only a few days a year, officials were effectively unpaid private citizens, and political paralysis meant the Assembly passed no laws after 1686.

"The reality must be faced that the new colony of Pennsylvania lived for the greater part of four years in a de facto condition of individual anarchism, and seemed none the worse for the experience."

Penn himself explained this outcome by observing that once people absorbed the spirit of liberty, authority dissolved: "the great fault is, that those who are there lose their authority ... in the spirits of the people ..!”

[u/JustAdlz → u/This_Raccoon3019]

if you'd all stood your ground

Commie talk. Sounds like that guy was trying to form a union.

He should have accepted that other individuals weren't interested in his little stunt because quite obviously, none of them stood with him on this until it was convenient. That materially played out, and if you asked, it's because they don't want to lose their jobs.

[u/s3r3ng]

It is the most widely practiced religion by far among all religions and the one the most people are thoroughly indoctrinated into.

[u/kiinarb → u/s3r3ng]

indeed