“If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”

Socialists often respond to libertarian objections to the encroachments upon individual freedom by saying “if you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”

A classic example is in the comments section of a recent post by Robert Wenzel entitled The Economics of “Predatory Lending”.

I encourage you to read this excellent post now.

This article prompted the following comment by the Socialist posting as “Anonymous”:

All of this economic theorizing works just fine, until it runs into the reality of low IQ menial laborers, who, from time to time itch to go get properly drunk at a bar or the like.

I am somewhat baffled that someone can claim, apparently with a straight face, that people risk going hungry in a country of food stamps and food banks for all who qualify. Do you honestly believe this yourself, Mr. Wenzel?

To which I responded:

@Anonymous#1 above:

Please read “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt.

Your logic is faulty when you cite the person of “low IQ” because they will pay the high rates regardless of whether or not there is a cap.

When you assume the fatal conceit of believing you know what is best for other people, you seal your own fate because you accept the belief that some men have the right to tell others how to live.

Please do your self (and the rest of us) a favor and read Mr. Hazlitt’s book – it’s available for free here:


Incidentally, food stamps/banks are typically funded by stolen (via taxation) money – in case you didn’t know…

The Socialist then responded:

Sorry a person who purports to value freedom,

YOUR logic is faulty, and horribly so.

First of all, as long as you VOLUNTARILY live in the United States, that is unless PHYSICALLY prevented from leaving the United States, you pay your takes of your own assent, and any talk of the taxes being “stolen” is utter nonsense.

Your second claim is also nonsense. I harbor no fatal conceit that “some have the right to tell others how to live;” what I believe, and what has been the case since our existence as cave men, is that when humans live together, they have agreed to the parameters of their co-existence or left their group.

Ever since 1776, real Americans have used the electoral process to determine who these rules were to be made (a few stolen elections notwithstanding.) I don’t believe they get everything right, but I believe that someone has to make the rules, and that if I don’t like the rules, I should either get involved inthe political system, or move somewhere else.

If you reject the Americna tradition, may I urge you to move to a more congenial political system?

As for paycheck loans, many of them are impulse decisions by low IQ people. Banning them won’t make the disappear, but will make them rarer, and harder to enforce.

The fact of the matter is that America has a fair number of functional illiterates on the bad side of the bell curve who can barely take care of themselves, even if one of them was recently president. The snotty bastards are not those who talk about this fact, but those who couldn’t care less.

To which I responded:

In response to Anonymous above:

You wrote:

“Your second claim is also nonsense. I harbor no fatal conceit that “some have the right to tell others how to live;” what I believe, and what has been the case since our existence as cave men, is that when humans live together, they have agreed to the parameters of their co-existence or left their group.”

To which I respond:

Essentially, what you are saying is that if the gang of the majority decide to take your life, liberty, or property then you have to move if you don’t agree with their vote.

You also wrote:

“If you reject the American tradition, may I urge you to move to a more congenial political system?”

To which I respond:

This is a continuation of your argument and it fails because you are essentially saying “It is okay to kill, enslave, and plunder and, if you don’t like it, you are welcomed to leave.”

Just because someone makes – in your opinion – a poor decision, you feel that you have the right to override their free will and make the decision for them. This is spoken like a true Socialist – one who has good intentions but whose actions result in evil perversions.

This is a common argument put forth by Statists and Socialists which can often leave you at a loss as to how to respond.  This is also an argument these people put forth in order to justify to themselves their own violent actions.  Be careful not to fall into this trap of lazy thinking!  If you have not done so already, read Lysander Spooner’s No Treason VI: The Constitution of No Authority.


9 responses to ““If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”

  1. In fact, when anything is “outlawed” the one true free-market (the black market) makes it available. But, since it is now illegal, it will alway cost much more (risk adjustment) and the penalties will be much greater to compensate. Usually, competition is lacking and attempts to compete often results in violence (e.g. drug lords).
    What the “socialist” overlooks in the referenced article is free exchange. Both parties to the payday loan win (they each believe they have received more than they have given up).

  2. I have heard libertarians AND socialists use the “if you don’t like it, get out” claim, so really, are we reading anything new here? Tons of conservatives usually say this. This is just a perpetuation of the same boring argument…

    What I don’t understand is that, if you guys are so bent on following the constitution, then how do you “promote the general welfare” as it says in the preamble?

  3. To Konstitute: “promote the general welfare” of whom? The people, or the states united into the United States? My belief is that the preamble is stating that the promotion of the general welfare, just like forming a more perfect union and insuring domestic tranquillity is speaking about the once sovereign states now making up the United States of America. The Constitution, itself, has little to nothing to say about “the people,” except for the Bill of Rights, which lists some of the rights of the people that the government cannot legitimately violate. Besides, other than being used as a guide to how the Founding Fathers thought, the preamble does not have the force of law.

  4. JosephPlumbMartin

    Konstitute Writes: “What I don’t understand is that, if you guys are so bent on following the constitution, then how do you “promote the general welfare” as it says in the preamble?”

    By leaving other prople alone..!

  5. PoliSci Major

    Right-wingers use the same line all the time. In fact they use it more. Let’s face it, right-wingers tend to be rigid while left-wingers tend to be accommodating…too accommodating.

  6. JosephPlumbMartin

    right wingers, left wingers, its always the same..

    “social justice” (can ya define that term for me?) vs. reality..

    “if ya don’t like it here, go elsewhere”..

    so many sound bites, so little life left..

    Divide and conquer is your plan..

    what we HAD in these united states was a republic..

    you fellows who want to manage everyone come along and take our liberty..

    but if YOU don’t like liberty, there are so many places you CAN go to where your ideas are growing like weeds, thus it is you who should go, not i or other liberty loving americans..

    your kind have had many years to “hone” your false logic and sing your siren song of “free stuff” while we just built a nation of great wealth for you to covet.. so you use your false song to take that which is not yours and distribute it to buy power..

    but you won’t leave us in peace because, like Willie Sutton said, when asked why he robbed banks, thats where the money is..

    PoliSci Major you are a frightening product of the far left educational system who believe you have all the answers.. take up a collection among your leftie over entitled friends, between beer bashes, buy a ticket to venezuela and go offer your ideas to commandante hugo, man of the people, bringer of fairness, spreader of (other peoples) wealth..

    do the lab work, see how it goes and report back if you survive..

    meanwhile i shall oppooose you and your kind so as to avoid the tyraany that always follows “social justice”..

    how do your less than left professors deal with leftie minds..?
    they like cement, all mixed up and hard as stone..
    thus it is far beyond my meager abilities to talk sense so i will now take my leave of this discussion..

  7. My response to that has been, “So in other words, when a gang takes over the neighborhood, starts looting, raping, and killing, my only option is to A. tolerate it and acknowledge their claimed right to do so, or B. find a neighborhood with a gang that I find less offensive and do the same? Give me a break.”

    Re: Bill of Rights: the Bill of “Rights” doesn’t preserve or grant any rights, it details the ways in which the government intends to violate and the conditions under which it is willing to respect preextant rights that it has no place violating in the first place. It was a snide response to the fear that the coup the members of the continental convention had perpetrated had seized too much power for themselves, as in “Yes, we do intend to silence you, disarm you, confiscate your property, put you in a cage, enslave you, and kill you, and here are the excuses we’ll use to do it.” Get over the fixation on the Constitution, it isn’t holy writ. It’s an agreement between competing tyrants to coexist and feed off the same livestock – to all support the same Big Lie in lieu of fracturing into competing warlords like parasitic scum do in less civilized places.

  8. I am at least relieved not to see Thomas Paine cited as an argument for Libertarianism. If I saw that, I would have pointed out his words in Agrarian Justice and The Rights of Man.

  9. I recall an acquaintance saying to me those words.- if you don’t like it here get the F….. out- very nice touch. Kind of sounds like a very insecure individual who’s power trip is being exposed for what it is. Right, left , up, down- we all sometimes get misled by name plates but truth is truth and I agree with Ron Paul for the most part when he says that theTruth is fundamentally simple. It’s only when you start to unravel truth that it’s paradoxical counterpart of complexity comes into view.
    All forms of government or groups or mass meetings can form and do form a’ group think’- kind of a group ego. And that ego will exist even over of welfare of it’s intended stated goals that where laid out from the beginning. Such is the behavior of this current government experiment of the last 200 plus years. Remember a true freedom loving person (anyone who is sane) doesn’t necessarily see themselves as an American but rather one who supports the original intention of ( and in this case) the USA and it’s freedom basis. It’s when people think that they ARE the USA and if you say to them , hey you must go, or stop doing this or that.. they then get defensive and attack because their sense of self is being directly threatened and is totally wrapped up in this identification of being the righteous American. To debate and to engage IS American. To question IS American. So is to NOT get yourself into international power grabs and entanglements is an American perspective and value. But watch those in power or those who lust for power -how they will work to change the meaning of certain words to mean what they want them to mean so that they will support their political hidden agenda….. Keep government small because until mankind can keep their nasty habit of control over others in a box their will be a need to reign them in.