I’ve been accused of “over-the-top,” “hyperventilating” hyperbole, for chastising the protectionist position, which in my words, “Ultimately ends in my death,” and “[Protectionists] are so concerned with the person from whom I acquire my [goods] that [they] would have me shot” because I don’t mimic their actions and values. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that this is not hyperbole (i.e., this car can stop on a dime) – it’s the logical extension and only possible conclusion that follows from consistent application of laws based on personal preferences and fancies.

First, they will send you a letter notifying you of your “crime,” and stipulating a penalty. If you pay it, you have conceded wrongdoing when you know in your heart that nothing of the sort has occurred.

If you don’t pay it, they might send you a few more letters. Eventually, they will order that you appear in front of their tribunal. If you do not go, they will send men with guns to take you against your will. If you resist them, they will kill you. In the even that they do not kill you, they will imprison you. If you try to escape, they will send men with guns and hounds to hunt you like the fox. If you resist, they will most likely kill you – but if they do not kill you, lather, rinse, repeat.

Moreover, as I replied at CafeHayek: “To try and debate the logic of a position which depends not on logic, but on force, is silly. What I want to do is demonstrate that they haven’t used logic yet – and a good way to do this is to show them what they have used in its stead: a gun.

If they want to start using logic, I welcome the opportunity. Until then, pardon me for pointing out the gun in the room.”