No Win Situations

Statists would have you believe that there is no way to not consent to the state. As Herbert Spencer pointed out long ago in his book The Right to Ignore the State, there is no way to argue against the state according to advocates of statism:

In affirming that a man may not be taxed unless he has directly or indirectly given his consent, it affirms that he may refuse to be so taxed; and to refuse to be taxed is to cut all connection with the State. Perhaps it will be said that this consent is not a specific, but a general, one, and that the citizen is understood to have assented to every thing his representative may do, when he voted for him. But suppose he did not vote for him; and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected some one holding opposite views—what then? The reply will probably be that by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority. And how if he did not vote at all? Why then he cannot justly complain of any tax, seeing that he made no protest against its imposition. So, curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted—whether he said “Yes,” whether he said “No,” or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine, this.

If you vote for the man who becomes president statists will claim you’ve consented to everything the president does for the duration of his term. If you vote for a man who doesn’t become president statists will claim you’re still consented to the system because you participated by voting. Finally, if you don’t vote for a presidential candidate statists will claim you have no right to complain because you didn’t attempt to get somebody else into office.

Statists have attempted to shield themselves from any debate but claiming everybody consents to the state whether they vote or not. One is generally considered the loser of an argument if they have to resort to claiming it’s impossible to disagree with them.