Student Teacher Statist Roomate

[Avery]

Hi all, this is my first time posting here.

 

I am trying to show a roommate of mine that government is force, and what it implies.  I've gone through many of the stock anarchist arguments in terms of showing that government is made up of people who hire people to use force to enforce opinions of the legislators.  

 

I've tried to explain that my position is that I do not know what is best for society so I cannot advocate for a government, because it can only force preferences.  He asserts that his voting does not have contain moral content because he is acting in rational self-interest.  He is a student teacher right now and advocates for public education.  

I've tried to show him the difference in our views in that I my position does not advocate anyone initiate force upon him, though his advocacy for government does just that upon me.  He claims that since government will commit these crimes regardless of his voting, he is not morally responsible for something someone in government does.  He claims he is picking the lesser of two evils in his situation.  He admits to the government being fundamentally flawed and that it will always be flawed, and has said he admitted government cannot operate without threats, violence, and coercion.  But he separates his voting and participation in government with the evils that others do in with government. How can I approach his argument or am I wrong in my thought process?

I need to move on in this debate with him.  I need for him to see that he is advocating for having preferences be forced upon me, and I need for him to understand that my position does not force anything upon him.  And ultimately you can have whatever opinion you want but if it involve making me a subject, it is no longer okay.  Thanks again and I appreciate any insight you all may provide.  Please help me understand if I am incorrect in any way.

 

--Avery

[Culain]

 <quote>He admits to the government being fundamentally flawed and that it will always be flawed, and has said he admitted government cannot operate without threats, violence, and coercion.  But he separates his voting and participation in government with the evils that others do in with government. How can I approach his argument or am I wrong in my thought process?</quote>

 

The government DOES NOT EXIST, it is simply a hierarchy of desire to control. Society is NOT a top down pyramid with congress at the top, it is horizontal. Congress only has power because people like him advocate for these people to use force.

 

You probably won't be able to convince him because he has invested a lot of resources into the education field, if he were to accept that government= violence then he would have to accept that his job prospect is funded on the blood of children.

[Avery]

Thanks Culain for your input.  I recognize it's very likely he will never give up this position.  If that is the case, how can I spend another 8 months of my lease with this guy?  I've been friends with him for many years, and I once considered him my best friend. Now that I'm pointing out that he is supporting someone else to initiate force upon me and take my property involuntarily, he is so uncomfortable with the questions that he is accusing me of threatening him with my viewpoint, as if I am telling him to abandon the idea that good can evolve out of evil.. Does anyone have any tips for staying sane I live here?

[Zimobog]

Honestly, he doesn't sound like that bad of a guy. Most people are statists because they don't know any other way.