Sadly–and alarmingly–logic is a topic which has virtually disappeared from American education.  While it may only be rarely taught, it cannot be escaped and it works its way through the minds of every individual and society.  The results, so far, have been devastating.  Worldwide, millions have lost their lives to the monstrous doctrine of statism.  Witness the horrific loss of life at the hands of communist, fascist, socialist states–and every other variety of statism–in the 20th century.

Why and how has such a vicious philosophy spread throughout much of the world, even though most–at least in America–openly oppose the ideas of statism?  The answer: they are trapped by accepting, unwittingly, the basic premises of those they oppose.

The classic example of a syllogism is the following:

All men are mortal       (Major, or basic, premise)
Socrates is a man         (Minor premise)
Socrates is mortal        (Conclusion)

Now, how does the foregoing figure into the decline of freedom in America?  The answer: statists smuggle into the minds of voters the basic premises of statism. Once those basic premises are accepted, the syllogistic results are inexorable.

Here’s how it works–and has worked for more than a 100 years in America.

Statist begin with seemingly innocuous measures which have profound long-range implications and consequences.

To understand how basic premises work their way through the mind of an individual—and, ultimately, throughout an entire society—consider the fictional town of Dimwit, California, around the year 1900.  Population: 2014.

Dimwit has two barbers.  A local busybody (a progressive liberal, a statist) is upset that her son has received a bad haircut.  Not satisfied with switching her business to the competing barber, she begins a campaign to protect children from bad haircuts.  She argues that barbers should be licensed to protect the public.  Voters in the community rally around her—and even the two Dimwitted barbers agree, thinking this would erect an obstacle to any other barber who might wish to move to the town, saving them from further competition.  Ultimately, Dimwit citizens vote to license barbers.

Now, consider what has been accepted by the citizens of Dimwit:  free competition can be outlawed—and—you must receive permission from others (the state) to earn a living in your chosen profession.

And there is more.  If one profession (barbers) must have the state’s permission to practice their trade, then any profession must have permission from the state to earn a living.  Once this much has been established, then statists can argue everyone must have a permit to work.  Then, they start picking off any and every conceivable profession: doctors, dentists, plumbers, electricians, teachers, etc.  All must have a license to earn a living.  And, historically, this is exactly what has happened.

And there is even more—much more and much worse: the basic concept of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been overturned by the dimwitted residents of Dimwit.  Hold firmly in mind the definition of a right:  A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.  Yet Dimwit now mandates that you must seek permission in order to earn a living.

Now, let’s fast forward to the present.  In America, most reject the basic premise of statism—which is: you do not have the right to act without the permission of others.  Yet they become trapped by statist’s ideas, by implicitly—without realizing it—accepting the basic premises of statism.

Consider how this process worked to advance Obamacare.  When the public debate over Obamacare was raging, statists were all over cable and network news programs arguing that the state can dictate that individuals purchase a product, i.e., health insurance.  After all, they argued, individuals are required to purchase insurance for their cars, therefore, they can and should be required to purchase health insurance.

The opponents of Obamacare squirmed and said that this was “different.”  The only problem was—and is—that it wasn’t and isn’t different.  The basic premise had long-since been established by statists when they won the battle to mandate everyone must buy car insurance.  The statist fight to mandate you purchase car insurance was trivial, in statists’ terms, they had won the larger prize: if the state can mandate you purchase one product, then the state can mandate you buy any product.  Once this basic premise was established, then the logic, over the decades, worked its way through the minds of Americans, resulting in the inevitable enactment of Obamacare.

Now, let’s return to the example of a syllogism, but change the basic premise.

All men are immortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is immortal.

While the conclusion is logically correct, the conclusion is clearly wrong.  Socrates is not immortal.  The conclusion is wrong, because the basic premise is wrong:  man is not immortal.  The acceptance of a bad premise, led to a bad conclusion.

If the basic premise is an accurate identification of reality, then the syllogism will bring you to the correct conclusion.  If the basic premise is an inaccurate identification of the facts of reality, then it will bring you to the wrong conclusion.  And, because of bad premises, America is heading to the wrong conclusion–at least, for now.

The lesson to be learned from the foregoing is: If you accept the basic premises of the enemies of freedom, you will lose the debate.  And, if you do so, you may very well lose, not only your freedom, money and property, but  your very life.

Fulton Huxtable


© 2014


Statism is the doctrine that maintains that your life, money and property are not yours, but the property of the state.  A statist is any individual who upholds this doctrine and/or supports its implementation.

A statist seeks to overturn every principle established by the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Today, in America, the chief exponents of statism are liberals and so-called “progressives.”  And for more than 100 years, these statists have been steadily progressing toward their ultimate goal: total control over you.

As an adult, a statist is grown up, physically, but is in a state of self-arrested, stunted, mental development.  His worldview is that of a child who can only do what his parents permit and who is dependent on his parents for everything.  In the adult world, he seeks to forcibly impose this view on others. You are the child and the state, run by statists, is the parent.  The statist may do anything he wants, while you may only do what the statist permits—bringing us a complete reversal of the way it should be.  In fact, you should be free to do whatever you want (so long as you do not violate the right of another to do the same), while government officials should only be able to do what constitutionally enacted law specifically permits—and no more.

The irony of it all is the fact that statists, left to their own devices, are impotent, powerless to harm you.  The power that they wield comes from the willing support of their victims, from the very individuals they control, from any and all who earn a living and produce the financial and material means statists use to regulate others. All that it would take for statists to lose this power over you is for their victims, the productive, to stop supporting them.  A statist’s greatest fear is your discovery of this fact.

A statist driven by the fear of having to fend for himself, to stand on his own two feet, to earn a living relying only on his ability—such a prospect terrifies him.  To protect himself he seeks to rule those who do stand on their own feet—who earn a living through their ability, knowledge and hard work.

In his impotence, a statist seeks to escape the terror of facing reality by ruling the competent, the capable—those who do face reality.  In a free society, statists would only be able to rise to the level of their ability, which, for most, would not be very far.  In a statist society, their ability to produce is irrelevant.  They can rise to the extent to which they are able to forcibly harness others—taking statists to heights impossible to them in a free society.

A statist hates self-reliance, so he forces you to rely on others and others to rely on you.  He will use anyone and anything to control you and force you into dependence: your children, your elderly parents, your neighbors who have fallen on hard times, your friends who are ill.  Every human problem or disaster is an opportunity to be capitalized upon by a statist—another chance to enlarge his powers.

A statist is that schoolyard bully, or his spiritual equivalent, of your childhood. But now he is grown up, all dressed up in a suit.  The only way he can allay his constant anxiety and dread is through the control and intimidation of others.  He doesn’t want to conquer nature, but other men.  He wants to cheat reality, not abide by it. He wants to get away with living, not live his life on his own.

A statist only has self-identity if the eyes of others are focused on him.  He only feels alive if is he is part of some group, so he forces others into adoring, dependent herds who must curry his favor in order to survive.

A statist hates the independent mind, since he doesn’t have one of his own.  He can’t really think, he can only manipulate words, ideas cut off from reality, emotions and other people—these are his only reality.  To a statist, reality is not real—thus, the truth doesn’t matter.  Lies, deception—and even the truth, on occasion—are interchangeable tools, one as valid as another, to be used to pander to the worst in man: the desire for the unearned.

A statist is that mooching relative, now a bureaucrat, for whom there can never be enough handouts.  He is a panhandler with a gun, who despises your charity as an insult, but claims your money as a right.  He is a criminal who has gone from bad to worse.  An armed robber is more honest than a statist politician: an armed robber doesn’t try to convince you that he is taking your money for your own good, but a statist politician does.

Such is the face and soul of a statist.

Before you vote for another statist politician, ask yourself this: would you—and take this literally—sign a legal document giving control over your life, money and property to another person—let’s say, to your Congressman or some faceless bureaucrat?  I doubt it.  I doubt if even many of the witless supporters of statism would do this, yet this is precisely what you effectively do when you support statism.  When you vote for statist politicians, you give them a proxy, a power of attorney of sorts, to carry out their ideas in practice, to vote away some part of your life, money and property.

The liberation of your life and the recognition of your right to it—to live it without seeking anyone’s permission—will only come once you revoke that proxy given to statists.  Once this occurs, the rebirth of freedom will begin in earnest.

Fulton Huxtable

July 4, 2014

© 2014

Continue reading WHAT IS A STATIST?



A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.

The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of anotherwithin this context, rights are an absolute.

A right is universalmeaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few.  There is no such thing as a “right” for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special “rights” unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.  A right is only possessed by an individual.  Groups, as such, only possess rights granted to them by the individuals in a given group.  Groups (organizations, companies and governments) only possess rights that are derived from individuals who grant such groups the right to speak and/or act on their behalf.

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action.  A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others.  It is not a claim on others.

It is said that time is money–and that is true.  More fundamentally, time is life. Your life is measured in time–and no one has the right to a second of your time without your permission.  You do not have the right to the time, money or property of another individual without that individual’s permission.

If someone steals your money, the time it took you to earn that money has been stolen.

If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn itthen you have a right to it.  If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another persons life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individualnot through coercion.  If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the ownernot gain it through theft or government coercion.

Alone in a wilderness, the concept of a right would never occur to you, even though in such isolation you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  In this solitude, you would be free to take the actions needed to sustain your life: hunt for food, grow crops, build a shelter and so on.  If a hundred new settlers (let’s say, all are millionaires) suddenly arrive in your area and establish a community, you do not gain any additional rights by living in such a society– nor do you lose any; you simply retain the same rights you possessed when you were alone.

A right defines what you may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross.  It is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your life’s time, money or property.

Animals do not have rights.

Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, capable of defining rights and creating an organized meansgovernmentof protecting such rights.  Thus, a fly or mosquito does not possess rights of any kind, including the right to life.  You may swat a fly or mosquito, killing them both.  You do not have the right to do the same to another human being, except in self-defense.  You may own and raise cows, keep them in captivity and milk them for all they are worth.  You do not have the right to do the same to other men, although that is what statists effectively do to you.

There is only one, fundamental right, the right to lifewhich is: the sovereignty to follow your own judgment, without anyones permission, about the actions in your life.  All other rights are applications of this right to specific contexts, such as property and freedom of speech.

The right to property is the right to take the action needed to create and/or earn the material and/or intellectual means needed for living.  Once you have earned it, then that particular property is yourswhich means: you have the right to control the use and disposal of that property.  It may not be taken from you or used by others without your permission.

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish, using any medium of communication you can afford.  It is not the responsibility of others to pay for some means of expression or to provide you with a platform on which to speak.  If a newspaper or television station refuses to allow you to express your views utilizing their property, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated and this is not censorship.  Censorship is a concept that only applies to government action, the action of forcibly forbidding and/or punishing the expression of certain ideas.

Statists have corrupted the actual meaning of a right and have converted it, in the minds of most, into its opposite: into a claim on the life of another.  With the growth of statism, over the past few decades, we have seen an explosion of these “rights”which, in fact, have gradually eroded your actual right to your life, money and property.

Statists declare you have a “right” to housing, to a job, to health care, to an education, to a minimum wage, to preferential treatment if you are a minority and so on.  These “rights” are all a claim, a lien, on your life and the lives of others.  These “rights” impose a form of involuntary servitude on you and others.  These “rights” force you to pay for someone’s housing, their health care, their education, for training for a joband, it forces others to provide special treatment for certain groups and to pay higher-than-necessary wages.

Under statism, “rights” are a means of enslavement: it places a mortgage on your lifeand statists are the mortgage holders, on the receiving end of unearned payments forcibly extracted from your life and your earnings.  You do not have a right to your life, others doaccording to statism. Others do not have a right to their lives, either, but you have a “right” to theirs.  Such a concept of “rights” forcibly hog-ties everyone to everyone else, making everyone a slave to everyone elseexcept for those masters, statist politicians, who pull the strings and crack the whipsand exempt themselves from the rules they impose on others.

Actual rightsthose actions to which you are entitled by your nature as mangive you clear title to your life, liberty and property.  A right is your declaration of independence.  A statist “right” is their declaration of your dependence on others and other’s dependence on you.  Until these bogus “rights” are repudiated, your freedom to live your life as you see fit will continue to slowly disappear.

Fulton Huxtable

May 29, 2014

© 2014