The hypocritical idiocy of statists


Something that has always amazed me is how willingly blind many statists are to their own hypocrisy. Granted there are a select consistent minority who want the Government in the boardroom, bedroom, and in other countries too, but not many.

Far too many seemingly switched on political actors are surprisingly hypocritical in their demands for state action. The obvious examples are, well, obvious: Those on the left that rally against Government’s military involvement in other nations, that campaign to end torture, extra-ordinary rendition and the senseless violence Western Democracies commit across the globe find themselves demanding that the same Government control their lives domestically. However someone can be so blind as to one minute march against a violent state and the next turn to the same body and demand it does more in another area is beggar’s belief. The State that abducts its own citizens and tortures them across the world, that waterboards and electroshocks those it perceives as enemies is the very state they want to run care homes for the elderly, and facilities for the vunerable. The State they accuse of propaganda and lies is the same state they demand ‘educate’ their children and shape their perception of the world. It is the same politicians who they believe are dismantling their welfare state, NHS, and who they think have a callous hatred for the poor that they wish to make more decisions and have more control over their lives.


But it is equally hypocritical from those on the right: those that think the Government can’t organise the proverbial piss up in a brewery, that make fun of politicians going to the wrong place, saying the wrong name are often the same people who demand the Government take intricate military action in nations we have too little understanding of during incredibly politically delicate times. The same people who argue for unintended consequences of Government action in the economy are the first to overlook the much larger unintended consequences of Government action in other countries.

So too with more socially conservative members of society who attack Government institutions like the BBC or schools for spreading left wing bias and then with the same breath demand the Government sets our morality and controls what we can or can’t do with our bodies, or with one another.

It is the same State that does things you dislike that you are asking to control areas you think important. The same politicians whose judgement you question and ridicule in one case you are asking to make decisions in another, the same institutions that you despise in one instance you proclaim loudly are your only hope in another.


  1. “I’ve read a book on libertarianism and if you don’t dogmatically follow it to the bone you are an idiot”

    Your assumption that the State is an evil conspiracy is hilarious and childish at the same time.

    And doesn’t the author love Ron Paul? One of the greatest social conservatives disguised as libertarianism out there….. Maybe Olly Neville is the hypocritical idiot. Especially as he was a member ok UKIP. The hypocrisy is too great to bother discussing.


  2. I’d agree. The only two logically consistent political positions are secular libertarianism (though not necessarily the anarchist kind) and christian neocon-socialism.

    • How is minarchism logically consistent? They argue that the free market is the best to provide everything, oh except the really IMPORTANT things (law, courts, police), that needs to be run by a government monopoly…

  3. “The same people who argue for unintended consequences of Government
    action in the economy are the first to overlook the much larger
    unintended consequences of Government action in other countries.” Incredibly sound.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here