Ruling classes train their human livestock much the way other animals are trained. It is a gradual process, modifying both perceptions and behaviors in a way that cannot be done instantaneously. For example, it doesn’t matter how loudly you yell at a wild wolf, or how hard you hit it—it’s not going to sit and roll over just because you tell it to. You have to methodically conquer it, control its will, and then use reward and punishment to train it to obey you.
Likewise, the intrusive, demeaning, immoral and oppressive crap that most humans put up with these days from “government” is not something that a free person could be quickly trained to tolerate. Instead, very gradually, one small step at a time, most of the species homo sapiens has been successfully “domesticated,” manipulated into being obedient and easily managed livestock.
Indeed, most humans have been trained so well that they voluntarily and unwittingly train the next generation of livestock to think and act similarly. And the livestock will even parrot irrational excuses for their own subjugation, believing that if their kind (the mere peasants) were truly free, that would lead to chaos and mayhem.
Consider a few aspects of authoritarian domination that most Americans quietly submit to today which they never would have put up with if they hadn’t been phased in over years, or even generations. Not only do they comply and obey with these degrading practices, but most of them zealously make excuses to justify their own mistreatment.
1 - Theft and extortion.
Perhaps the most obvious example is not only the amount of wealth that the ruling class directly steals from productive people by way of “taxes,” but the number of ways in which that theft occurs. If you own property, you will pay the protection racket known as “property taxes” or men with guns will come steal your property. If you earn a living, several levels of professional parasites claim the right to a cut of it. But the list goes far beyond that.
When you go shopping, the people selling you things have to rob you a little on behalf of the ruling class (and call it “sales taxes”). And many of the things you buy were also the subject of all kinds of “excise” taxes, which increase the price you pay. If you own a car, you have to pay off the politicians every few years (they call it “registering” your car) or bad things will happen to. And so on, and so on, and so on.
(There is also the fraudulent theft that is done in the name of “monetary policy,” where dollars are constantly devalued by creating more out of thin air. It may not technically be a tax, but it amounts to the same thing since it constitutes the theft of everyone else’s buying power.)
The number of different “taxes,” and the total amount stolen from people, has expanded enormously in just a few generations. As an illustration, the American Revolution was due in large part to tiny taxes on tea and pieces of paper. There was no general sales tax or income tax in the colonies. Most of the colonists never even met a tax collector, never filled out a form, and never paid a tax themselves.
It took nearly a hundred years before the ruling class ever attempted the first income tax in this country, in 1861—which applied only to a tiny percentage of the population, and took only a small percentage of their wealth. But via the classic “boiled frog” method, it has slowly been ratcheted up over the years, hitting more and more people, and stealing more and more wealth.
Notice that in 1913 the tax started at 1% for any “net income” received in excess of $3,000 annually. In current dollars that would mean no federal income for anyone receiving $75,000 annually or less, and a tax of $750 for someone with a “net income” of $150,000.
Today things are literally a hundred times worse than they were just before the Revolution, yet the modern livestock have been successfully trained over time so well that they do little more than occasionally grumble, with no sign of even passively resisting, much less taking up arms against the thieves. Had the U.S. ruling class, in the very beginning, attempted to steal around half of the income of a huge percentage of the population, there would have immediately been another revolution. Or, more likely, the people would have just laughed at it and ignored the demands, which would have been immediately unenforceable.
As another bit of perspective, this country has a rich history of violent resistance to taxation, even after the Revolution (and after the new ruling class started robbing the people). There was a time when moonshiners would literally tar and feather—or just shoot—“revenuers” trying to rob them or shut them down.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/moonshine4.htm
And that was just in response to a “tax” on alcohol, not a tax on most people’s livelihoods. Modern subjects are rather less “uppity” than they have been in the past, with many of them eager to make excuses for widespread authoritarian extortion, and eager to condemn anyone who doesn’t cooperate with his own robbery.
The point is, statists never think or argue from actual principles; they argue from the perspective of whatever level of authoritarian domination exists right now, and make excuses for it. The average statist in 1900 would be appalled at the suggestion that there should be the level of taxation, regulation and legislation that exists right now, but would also zealously defend and make excuses for most of the taxation, regulation and legislation that existed in 1900, although that was far worse than what a statist from 1800 would have condoned.
At no point is the statist at all objective or principled when it comes to saying how much authoritarian control there should be, and how much freedom there should be. Their position is always massively biased based on whatever level of intrusion and control they grew up around, and have gotten accustomed to. They object to the suggestion that there should be much more authoritarianism than that, but also object to the idea of having much less authoritarianism than that.
For example, the average voter would view it as “draconian” and “extreme” to cut the federal budget in half, even though it was only about fifteen years ago when it was half the size it is now. But they would also complain about doubling the federal budget. Likewise, cutting taxes in half across the board, or doubling taxes across the board, would both be viewed by many Americans as too drastic. In other words, they think they are just about the right amount of oppressed, robbed and controlled right now, and don’t want any significant change in any direction.
(In the other two parts of this series we will examine other examples of how human beings are slowly trained to become accustomed to, tolerant of, and even attached to their own domination and oppression.)
(Larken Rose is a speaker, author and activist, having advocated the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership and a stateless, voluntary society for over twenty years. Donations to help support his articles, videos and other projects can be made by PayPal to "larken@larkenrose.com" or by Bitcoin to 13xVLRidonzTHeJCUPZDaFH6dar3UTx5js.)