The Philosophical Basis of "No!"

by Paul Hein

It is irksome and frustrating to confront a headstrong child who, on given a reasonable order, stamps his foot and screams, “No!  I won’t do it! I don’t want to!” The tranquility of the household evaporates before this tempest in a demi-tasse. The unpleasantness is doubly absurd:  The matter in question is too trivial to merit such an outburst (eat your spinach, clean up your room) and the parent issuing the order is, without doubt, a proper authority.

Perhaps, though, this should be the behavior of adults when confronted with the demands—hardly reasonable or legitimate--of the state. There is a growing realization that the bureaucrats of today have little idea of the proper role of government. Our Republic is fast becoming the New Fascist State, with everything and everyone under government regulations, and lots of them at that. But to respond to the demands of the State with “I don’t want to” seems preposterously childish. No, one must find some legal irregularity in the demand itself: a procedural deficiency, perhaps. Or one must decry its unconstitutionality, as though that document had any relevance today. One can’t simply say, “I don’t want to!”

But why not? Indeed, what better reason can there be to resist? Unlike the case of the churlish child, the adult who says “No!” is not dealing with a basically trivial issue. The demands made upon him involve his freedom or his wallet, or both, and are significant. Moreover, the person making the demands has, in many cases, no legitimate authority. It may be difficult to prove, however, or to make readily understandable, that the demands are illegitimate. One can become bogged down in legal technicalities which make it appear that the protestor is seeking some loophole to avoid a lawful obligation. But convoluted arguments are not necessary, nor is there any reason to feel guilt in challenging the state’s demands. The proper response is “I don’t want to,” and the reason that it is proper is because of the “I.” 

It is upon your life and property that the state makes demands. You may remain indifferent to those demands if they are made on me, or your neighbor; but you can surely object to them when made upon you. The bureaucrat is telling you that his wishes regarding your life and the way you conduct it are superior to yours. That is absurd, but so commonplace that we don’t think of responding with the appropriate “I don’t want to.” 

When some official tells you that, in hiring someone to watch your child, or cut your lawn, or clean your house, you become an “employer,” and thus subject to a tax on employers, he is saying that he, not you, will determine your status, and, guess what:  his determination is to his benefit and your detriment. When he tells you that you can continue to live in “your” home, and regard yourself as its “owner,” so long as you pay the tax he demands each year, at the time and in the amount he dictates, he is saying that he is lord and you are serf, and he has made this determination without consulting you or seeking your approval. Ignore his demands, and “your” house will revert to him. And, of course, when he tells you that you may work, but that the first fruits of your labor are his, in percentages of his devising, he is making clear that you are subordinate to him; your life is his, not yours, to regulate as he sees fit. Is any complex legal argument needed to object to this arrangement? Need one justify his resistance with anything more technical than “No, I won’t?” 

Freedom is seldom achieved with abstruse legal arguments. More often, it follows massive civil disobedience—even war, if necessary. To enlist in the resistance requires nothing more than a realization that you (after God!) are sovereign, and short of an agreement between you and another, you, not someone else, will determine how you live your life. YOUR life!!!

January 31, 2002