You’ve Been Conned

I have no interest in singling out Baron specifically. I have cut the excerpt out above solely because it shows so clearly what I am talking about when I say “you’ve been conned”.

Our entire generation has been conned into believing contradictions can exist in reality, and that good can be achieved by evil — especially when government is involved.

Baron demonstrates this by asking first and foremost: if we do not forcefully collect taxes, how do we fund government? I will presume he is asking this because he has thus far been unable to conceive of a way to fund government adequately, without forcefully collecting taxes.

What he fails to realize is that his, or an entire nation’s inability to conceive of a way to fund government without evil means (violence), is irrelevant. Forcefully collecting taxes, for any supposed reason, is evil, independent of what the alternatives are, and how efficient or inefficient they may be.

To put this bluntly, our generation has been conned to the level of becoming an intellectual brute or barbarian.

Because I cannot think of a non-violent way to achieve my good ends (funding government), I will resort to hurting, imprisoning, and even killing other people who refuse to hand me their money and property.

This is how low we have allowed our minds to sink. It is not just Baron. It is millions of young people around the world.

“I want to achieve good. And because I am currently unable to think of a way to achieve my values, I will immediately resort to violence.”

Evil can never achieve good. “Necessary evils” cannot and do not exist.


To put this in a context most will understand more clearly, if I am fat, and try “as many diets as I can think of”, remain fat, and give up searching for new diets that produce sustainable and positive results, it is illogical to conclude that a proper diet does not exist simply because I have been unable to find it and have given up searching for it.

Nature demands that a healthful diet exists, whether or not I am skilled or fortunate enough to discover it in my lifetime. The undefinable glob of “everyone” concluding that a lean healthy body is impossible to achieve through dietary means, does not make forcefully cutting off my body fat with a dull knife, the right and logical thing to do.

You would not be conned into sitting idly by and watching that happen to your fat neighbors because it is easy to observe how evil this is.

The question now is: why do you sit by and watch IRS agents steal money from your neighbors at gun point?

Why do you watch people get hauled off to jail for using their own money?

Why would you sit by and watch young men be hauled off to fight in foreign wars of aggression under the guise of a “duty to be drafted”?

You would sit by and watch these things because you have been conned into thinking like a mindless brute, which is to say, not thinking at all.

You would sit by because you are unable to think of an alternative, which is to cede that evil is right, that evil is good, that man is a slave to his brothers, that freedom is evil, and happiness is not possible.

But do you honestly believe these things to be true?

— Anthony Dream Johnson

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at and

20 Responses to You’ve Been Conned

  1. James13ond February 7, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    Woah… I read these last two posts . An argument could not be logically formed. There is no room for argument. Thank you for the enlightenment :).

  2. MikG February 8, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    so then how do we fund it? I fully agrree with your point, but unless I skipped the line, how do we adequaltley fund government ?

  3. mikeg February 8, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    SO then how? How do we fund government? I agree with your stance, but asfar as I can see you havnt proposed a solution if you have, can you clarify it for meÉ

    • Joao Eira February 9, 2012 at 7:08 am #

      By voluntary consent.

  4. mikeg February 9, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    thats gotta be a joke, no one is giving thier money to the gov voluntarily. thats a fantasy, and a bad one at that

    • Joao Eira February 9, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

      No, it is not.

      The proper role of government is to protect its citizens rights. It achieves that with the police, to protect people against criminals, the military, to protect the country against foreign threat, and the judicial system to settle disputes. Asides from those three things, it has no further role.

      And those are valuable services. There is no question about it. With the amount of wealth that people would be able to create, and actually keep, there would be no problem to fund those three services (two if you charge a fee, that would be used to fund the judicial system, to validate contracts between two or more parties).

      Are you telling me that no one would voluntarily give some of their money to the government so that it can keep them safe? Now that’s a fantasy.

  5. mikeg February 9, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    yep thats what Im telling you, no ones gunna do it. Ipad2 or or donate money to the government ? nice night out or pay a cops salary? by a gun or give away ur money so someelse can buy a gun? people are greedy, the collapse of the us economy is largley based on greed, lehman bros, worldcom, nortel multibillion dollar greed. they didnt want to give a penny away and they had the most, you think a single mom is donating any of her salary? ppl with student loans? people with mortages ?

    People will sooner arm themselves heavily than hand thier money away to someone saying “trust us”

    Give yourself a break here, and stop arguing a superflous point, AINT NOBODY GON GIV DER CASH AWAY

    • Joao Eira February 9, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

      Well, at least you have found Anthony’s blog.

      You’ll understand why is it that you’re wrong and where I am coming from if you continue hanging out here, and checking The 21 Convention in the future.

      If you want to speed that process, read Ayn Rand. I know it’s a long shot and you probably won’t read any of it any time soon, but believe me, you’ll not be the same after reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. And I’m talking from experience.

  6. mikeg February 9, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    Ive bin paroozing this site for a while now 3 years I think, and seen most of the 21 convention material. All the ayn rand in the world isnt gunna get people to sign over thier money. Its simply not gunna happen.

    I know what where your comming from, just like I know where religious people are comming from, its a place of delusion and unsubstatiated claims.

    What objective % of peoples income do you expect them to donate to the governent?
    How does this % fluctuate when someone gets a parking/traffic ticket?
    how does this % fluctuate when someone gets mugged?

    On what grounds do you think ppl are willing to write a check to the government (potentialy a leader whom they didnt vvote for)

    your stance is pretty sanguin and idealistic, Ide like to think your right but you aint

    • Joao Eira February 9, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

      So, in your view, people would just think that they are better off by buying an iPad 2 instead of subsidizing the one thing that’s protecting them from having that same iPad 2 stolen?

      Come on.

      On what grounds do I think people are willing to write a check to the government? Reason, I need no other (providing that it is a proper government and not the backwards one there is today pretty much all over the world).

  7. mikeg February 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    Reason? the same reason that packs churches and mosques and synagoges all over america ( + other parts of the world)

    YES you need other, Reason alone would abolish all religion in less than a day if it were being used and guess what? chruches all over america are slammed full

    “proper government” is a term that ppl define differntley, would ppl that disagree with the gov stil lcontribute?

    Im guna keep asking you this, because your thesis whether you know it or not is hindered on this one question WHAT OBJECTVE % OF PPLS INCOME DO U EXPECT TO HAVE THEM DONATE TO THE GIVERNMENT?

    do not respond if u do not intent to answer this question.

    Your welcome -MikeG

    • Joao Eira February 9, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

      It’s not up to me to decide what % of their income should they donate to the government. It’s (it would be) their job to determine, first, if they see any reason to donate at all, and second, how much is it worth for them.

      I can’t answer that question for them, nor do I care to try. I can only answer that for myself. Do I see any reason to fund the same institution that protects my individual rights? Fuck yeah.

      You don’t state this in full terms but you seem to be arguing for the irrationality of “other people”, that everyone else is a brainless zombie incapable of any thinking capacity.

      Also, there may be differing opinions about what the proper role of government is but that doesn’t mean there there are multiple proper roles of government. There is only one reality, it isn’t bound to any opinions.

      Answer me this question, do you think the government has the right to initiate force against people who haven’t? That’s the central issue here.

      • Matt February 13, 2012 at 12:23 am #

        Of course you want to protect your own rights… I’d imagine you also care about protecting other peoples rights…

        But people with different ideologies probably wouldn’t care about protecting others rights. And the richest of them, rather than paying for a police force, would pay for the much cheaper and much more effective (for them) job of protection for themselves. The poor wouldn’t see the reason to pay for money when they care barely afford things as it is, (especially when the government hasn’t been protecting themselves, because they’re low on cash).

        So now you got the rich getting private security, and the poor fending for themselves. Suddenly the people who work for the government aren’t being paid enough, so they go find work where they can get paid. Next thing you know the next election roles around, and there’s not enough staffers to get all the election booths set up to tally the votes.

        Goodbye Government, Goodbye Protection of Personal Liberties.

        So we have two solutions that don’t work, forced income tax because it’s morally abhorrent, and voluntary doesn’t work because well… then the government that protects everyone is in competition with personal services that can protect only you.

        What’s your solution?

        • Joao Eira February 13, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

          I don’t see why the two – private security companies and the police force – couldn’t coexist with each other.

          Private security can only deal with self-defense issues. It can’t make detentions and it can’t do any investigations to prove someone guilty of a crime. More, its present budget is bloated because it has to deal with drug related crimes and other personal freedom related issues. With that out of the way they would be freed to focus on the essential issues they have to deal with, making them far more efficient and, I would guess, less costly to run.

          I would also imagine that happiness levels across the board would rise and we would see a massive decrease in violent crimes but I don’t have the data to back that claim up. Ah, and I am not even thinking about the decrease we would see in drug related violence.

          I also think you have a false dichotomy there because you seem to imply that there is only two economic brackets that people fit in: The Super-Rich and the Super-Poor. You’re ignoring the middle-class, that would see a huge increase in numbers in a laissez-faire economy (people would be able to keep ALL the money that they create and there would be a far more friendly environment to invest in).

  8. mikeg February 9, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    Answer me this question, do you think the government has the right to initiate force against people who haven’t? That’s the central issue here.

    -NO! they dont have right to do that, I never said they did, nor will I.

    You don’t state this in full terms but you seem to be arguing for the irrationality of “other people”, that everyone else is a brainless zombie incapable of any thinking capacity

    – ever bin to a church/moaque/synogouge?? No one there is thinkig, they are all thinking what SOMEONE ELSE told them to and have not questioned it. AND they are huge percentage of the worlds population muslims+Christians+ jews + (any other religion)= a meaningfull % of the population u should not trust to make a good decision, they may make some, but it would be by accident ( broken clock analgy) because they ARE mindless on at least one important issue RELIGON, if they cant think right there, then they why trust them to do so somethere esle.

    WHAT OBJECTIVE % OF THIER INCOME SHOULD THEY DONATE? if you leave it up to them your gunna a number thats SOOO low, because SOOO many ppl dont have the means to suport themselves, let alone thier governemtn.

    You banking on a few rich ppl to carry the rest of the population mr. obama

    • MC February 9, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

      Ron Paul is a Christian from what I am aware, and I’d trust his ability to think and make decisions on the matter of government.

      I believe the Founding Fathers of the American States were Christians.

      I’m not part of any religion myself, but I think your assumptions are flawed. It sounds an awful lot like you’re advocating bigger government and income tax because “people are too stupid to lead their own lives. They need government to look after them.”

      Income tax doesn’t make up 100% of the government budget. I believe it’s only 1/3rd. The budget 12 years ago was significantly less then it is now. The government has hundreds of military bases around the world, and has been involved in several ongoing wars. The government has only been expanding and increasing it’s budget year after year, which is probably only made possible by taking money from people by force(income tax), and the fact that it keeps printing out more fiat currency backed by nothing.

      The government was running quite well before they started an income tax. They only started it in the first place to fund a war. Income tax probably goes more towards paying the central banks so they create more money and only further puts the country in debt.

  9. mikeg February 10, 2012 at 1:14 am #

    I am not advocating gov intervention, I hate big gov. I want to make sure I am clear as possible here, I am against big gov, and gov intervntion!

    I am suggesting that people are generally pretty dumb, and unlikely to make good decisions on a consistnat basis, I AM NOT suggesting gov should step in, that will likely only make things worse. Ppl should make thier own (bad) decions on thier own accord of thier own free will, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else in the process, I dont care if some jackhole wants to hurt himself, its not my place nor governemnts place to intervene untill he is hurting others intentioanlly or otherwise in the process.

    Ron paul is by far the best canditate for president, but remember the president MUST beleive in some sort of higher omnicient being, its a rule, so he sais he belives in god. Im unsure if I beleive him, if he sais hes atheist he cant run so he must pander to the rules if he wants to play, but he is an old guy from the bible belt so mabey he does belive in nonsence.

    if Ron paul actually belives in god then he is an idiot, STILL the best choice for president (remeber they all say they believe that nonensence) Theres a differnce between a perfect option and the best option, Ron paul is by far the best option, not perfect though.

    I am inclinded to believe he is pro life ( he said he was) but hes also preaching to the right wing/ bible belters, so that would be another idiodic stance, second only to believe in an eye in the sky that can count the hairs on ur head

  10. MC February 10, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    I wouldn’t call Ron Paul an “idiot” because of his belief system. There are many intelligent people who believe in God, and many Atheists who are vegan hippies addicted to self sacrifice.

    I doubt he’s pretending to believe in God, because he has also stated that he doesn’t believe in Evolution. I still wouldn’t insult his intelligence, as he has more then the majority of citizens who believe in Evolution.

    I believe his stance on abortion is a human rights issue. I don’t believe he’s preaching to any political party, but honestly believes that the baby inside a woman’s womb should have rights, like any other human being. I wouldn’t call that “idiotic.”

  11. mikeg February 11, 2012 at 12:05 am #

    If he doesnt believe in evolution hes an idiot, if he belieives in god, hes an idiot plain and simple. These 2 beliefs lay the foundation for idiocy. You can ONLY call people idiots based on thier belief system, and actions. SO far hes hasnt done anything but explain his WRONG belief system. IF one thinks the most plausible explanation for something is god, than thier dumb.

    Hes by far the best presidentia lcandidiate, if I were american Id vote for him, but Sam Harris would make him look like bill o rielly intellectually

    • MC February 11, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

      If I ever believed Ron Paul was an idiot, I wouldn’t vote for him, whether he was the best candidate for the job or not. I wouldn’t waste my time voting for anyone I had such a low opinion of.

      Ron Paul is from an older generation where he wasn’t necessarily taught evolution. They prayed to God in their schools everyday, and Christianity was taught to him by his parents, and probably the rest of the community. During a time where his mother probably stayed home and actually taught her children. He probaqbly didn’t think she was lying to him.

      If it negatively impacts the choices he makes as President, we’d have a problem. I don’t see that as the case.

Make your mark