The merciful assassin.

“Look at all the good government does. They capture all these criminals. Government can’t be so bad!”

“Look at all the charities churches maintain. They really help the most destitute. Religion can’t be so bad!”

One argument used to justify arbitrary authority (which we Anarchists consider our enemy) is to point at its “good deeds.” Believers in either doctrine demand that we look at these “good deeds” and thereby pronounce the belief system good on that basis. But this is an absurd concept. No one seriously justifies crime and servitude on the basis of a few good deeds.

– “This man has raped and killed thirty-six young girls. He should fry.”

– “But wait! I know for a fact that he reads to children at the local hospital every Wednesday!”

– “Wow, I guess he’s not so bad then…”

Would this strike anyone sane as an even remotely realistic scenario? No, it is absolutely insane. Likewise, it is insane to attempt to justify the mass murders, mass extortions, mass kidnappings and mass enslavement of government, or the massive apparatus of mental and political control of religion, by pointing to a relatively insignificant amount of “good deeds.”

Even worse, we must remember that by their very existence government and religion “crowd out” voluntary action. Private, customer-friendly, efficient police forces have been tried and tested, but cannot operate on any large scale due to the government monopoly. Money from believers, which would have otherwise gone to non-religious charities, are siphoned to religious causes (including anti-secular, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual organizations). Because we have no idea how much better off we’d be without this massive redirection, it is a disaster on a scale we cannot even comprehend.

We must clearly differentiate specific actions from the concept they seek to instantiate. The concept of government (a ruling class which monopolizes crime in order to live as a parasite on productive people) is pure evil. Most people who work for a government, however, are not pure evil. In fact, I don’t believe people in themselves are good or evil. Likewise, the concept of religion (a moral and social balkanization of society in the name of pure hedonism) is pure evil, but most religious believers have not examined what it is they believe in and why they believe in it.

There are better and worse government. There are better and worse religions and ways of believing. That much is true. However, that fact alone does not justify supporting “better government” or “better religion.” Government and organized religion must be eliminated, because they are the enemies of individual freedom.

That being said, we must not do like some other people and throw the baby with the bathwater. Policing and charity are not bad things in and of themselves. They are tools that the working class can use for its own purposes. But as long as they are in the hands of our enemies, we must continue to denounce their abuse.

12 thoughts on “The merciful assassin.

  1. kentmcmanigal December 1, 2007 at 00:46

    Those who still believe religion is good need to check out WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com and then go to the WWGHA forum to prove their point.

  2. Francois Tremblay December 1, 2007 at 01:11

    I agree on that one!

  3. lsj521 December 2, 2007 at 00:53

    “most religious believers have not examined what it is they believe in and why they believe in it.”

    Prety obvious, but warranted being pointed out: the fundemental problem with religion (especially Christianity). The more “free thinking” anyone becomes, the more dangerous they are to that religion.

    It was perfectly clear to me, at age 14, that the church didn’t want anything to do with my “crazy” questions. I’m proud to say I spent a lot of time kicked out of my CCD classes than sitting quietly at my desk.

  4. Francois Tremblay December 2, 2007 at 00:58

    Asking questions is kindof counterproductive to the whole thing, of course…

  5. alleee December 2, 2007 at 16:39

    But why don’t you look at the good things religion does, instead of focusing on the bad things.

    Oh–my bad, I meant Nazi-ism.

  6. roma38 December 3, 2007 at 17:13

    I have a question for secularists/atheists.

    What is good and what is bad? And who says so? Societies can emerge in which killing and eating another human being can be considered sane. Robbing, raping and plundering from neighboring tribes okay. Who says it is wrong? A community of atheists? Why should this community of atheists be accepted? Who made them God?

    You can say we have evolved a morality and rational human beings know what is right or wrong naturally or through reason. But who says we have to be rational? Afterall a community could choose to be irrational if it served some purpose for a group, and why should any of us agree to live by the rules of another?

  7. Francois Tremblay December 3, 2007 at 21:31

    No one says you have to be rational. But you cannot be moral without being rational, because knowing what is desirable to fulfill our values can only come from the evidence. If you rely on books that are thousands of years old, you’re damning yourself to immorality.

    Here’s a FAQ for you:
    http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/06/individualist-morality-faq.html

  8. roma38 December 4, 2007 at 08:15

    The trouble is, you are assuming that we start off from a clean slate, when we do not. All individuals in whatever context (time and place) have a history a indoctrination…even you…no one can escape it.

    Morality sometimes has no concrete evidence like in science. Is adultery a bad thing or a good thing? Someone who commits adultery and argues that they are happier cheating and it causes no harm to anyone, is it really wrong? If the adulterer is happy and the cheated on partner is ignorant and happy, there is no harm. Do we not consider adultery a wrong because of our Christian (religious) heritage?

    Okay collectivist morality systems attempt to impose their morality on everyone, but is that really a bad thing? There is a competition and the best morality wins and becomes dominant, until it breaks down under its own corruption and a new morality arises. This is natural. No individual is born or lives as an island…we are a product of our society.

    Individuals can be pig headed, stubborn, selfish, crazy, greedy and they can be opposite of this….but a free for all would not glue that society together…some form of promotion or influencing would take place in order to bring about some unity in my opinion.

  9. roma38 December 4, 2007 at 08:26

    In your FAQs you also talk about ‘going to jail forever’ if you kill someone….but that is an imposition of a collectivist punishment, you are pre-supposing a collectivist law enforcement and punishment exists. A society could quite easily attack a neighbouring land, because it has rivers, productive land, slave labour and consider it quite acceptable as a society because it will bring ‘comfort’ and less toil to them if they can enslave others to work for them.

  10. Francois Tremblay December 4, 2007 at 14:45

    So on one post you claim your basic morality is “might makes right” (whatever morality wins out by force is the best) and then on your next post you are against “might makes right”? What if, in your world, war and slave labour does “win out” as a morality?

    You talk a lot, and you trip all over yourself.

    And I never said I believe in blank slate, that’s ridiculous. Of course morality has evolutionary and historical roots, I don’t deny that, but that doesn’t mean that everything people did was right! Come back to reality once in a while willya?

  11. roma38 December 5, 2007 at 16:14

    I did not say might is right, I mean Truth is Right. If two false moralities compete, one of the two will win out, not because it is ‘the best’…just because against the competing false morality, one has to win out. However the Truth if it appears is bound to win against falsities, it does not always appear. The Truth over time becomes corrupt. Such is life, it is never static always changing.

    When Corrupt moralities have become dominant, other moralities, both false and Truth jostle for dominance and power. This is happening now on this board. You are trying to convince us that you are upon the truth…I am questioning it.

  12. Francois Tremblay December 5, 2007 at 17:30

    Moralities do not “compete.” They are enforced by the gun and emotional manipulation. To believe in such a competition IS a belief in “might makes right.” All I am telling people is to restore their confidence in their own values, and to use reason in order to act on them. What you propose is mental brutality.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: