Thus Kushal and I (insert text)

Use of the term we paves the way for government intervention into individual lives and the
debate space this form of politicization in debate causes tyrannical rule and coercion, crushing
the possibility for participatory democracy
Roger Kerr, Executive Director of the New Zealand Business Roundtable, 3 (The 'We' Word: And the
Tyranny of the Majorityhttp://www.cis.org.au/policy/summer03-04/polsumm0304-4.htm)

Of all such terms, 'we' is the most subtle and troublesome. It is a term that weso to speak
cannot dispense with, and so we risk being trapped into connotations that we don't intend or are
unaware ol. 'We' can he used in an individualistic sense: We as individuals, who on an and make
decisions on out own l-ii ill Km ii can aim he used in a collective sense meaning that on each
issue we' Have to make a single decision that applies 10 all of us. For example, after a natural
catasttophc. someone might say. 'we should all help the victims'. The words hi themselves don't
expose two crucial distinctions: whether assistance should he by each of us as individuals or
organised on a collective basis; and. it collective, whether it should be voluntary (through
donations) or invotumary (through government anion financed out of taxes). But my deeper
point is that this ambiguity of vs. can Irad us into collective thinking and coercive action where it
isn't necessary, political rhetoric is full ol phrases like 'we as a nation mutt decide whether we
want a national airline/film industry/manufacturing sector/whatever*. This assumes that We
have to make a single. collective decision as voter*, whereas in reality 'we' as individuals arc
making that decision every day. If consumers prefer a domestically manufactured uct to an
imported one. a domestic manufacturing industry or firm will be there to meet the demand: if
they prefer the imported pindusi it won't. The demand that 'we at a nation must decide' is to call
on people to decide through the political system things that they can readily resolve as
individual consumers. I he 'we' word may also be used by members of groups that arc smaller
than, and contained within, the wider society. In a system that encourages lobbying by special
interests and institutionalises 'disadsantaged' minorities, spokespersons of those groups may be
tempted into a false collectivism. I He media encourage this by commonly treating any member
of a disadvantaged minority as automatically representative of that sub-set. as if all its uu-mlxis
were unanimous about every issue. As Green note*, if we lake society 10 he i civil association
taihci than a lorpouu jssocuiion. (he role of what 'we' collectively have to decide U limited to
genuine public goodv like law cnfoiccmcnt and defencesince ihcsc are goods thai we
individually can't otherwise prducc in die desired amountsplus some form of collectively
provided social safety net. There are noi many genuine public goods, and the number is
shrinking with advancing technology. Bui ihe constant use ol the lollcctivc 'we' in political debate
tends to push out the agenda of government into areas where wc as individuals are capable of
looking after ourselves. Indeed, most ol the time the 'we' word is really a disguise for the 'if
word: (he government. Thine who argue thai we as a nation must decide whether we want a
manufacturing indusirv are really saving that, since 'we' as individual consumer* have shown
that wc prefer imports, the government should override those preferences and pmiixi domestic
manulaciuiers Irom import competition. I"he nope lor special interests to advance under lbs'
cover ol the 'sve' word is obvious.
Each new step of coercion must be resisted it moves us one step further
along the road of oppression
Browne, 1995 (Harry, Former Libertarian Party candidate for President and
Director of Public Policy for the DownsizeDC.org, Why Government Doesnt Work,
p.65-66, JMP)
Escalation Each increase in coercion is easier to justify. If it's right to force banks to report your
finances to the government, then it's right to force you to justify the cash in your pocket at the airport. If it's right

to take property from the rich to give to the poor, then it's right to take your property for the salt marsh harvest

As each government program fails, it becomes "necessary" to move another

step closer to complete control over our lives. As one thing leads to another - as coercion leads to
mouse.

more coercion - what can we look forward to? Will it become necessary to force you to justify everything you do
to any government agent who thinks you might be a threat to society? Will it become necessary to force your
children to report your personal habits to their teachers or the police? Will it become necessary to force your
neighbors to monitor your activities? Will it become necessary to force you to attend a reeducation program to
learn how to be more sensitive, or how not to discriminate, or how to avoid being lured into taking drugs, or how
to recognize suspicious behavior? Will it become necessary to prohibit some of your favorite foods and ban other
pleasures, so you don't fall ill or have an accident - putting a burden on America's health-care system? Some of
these things - such as getting children to snitch on their parents or ordering people into reeducation programs already are happening in America. The others have been proposed and are being considered seriously. History has

We move step by
step further along the road to oppression because each step seems like such a
small one. And because we're told that each step will give us something alluring in
return-less crime, cheaper health care, safety from terrorists, an end to
discrimination - even if none of the previous steps delivered on its promise. And
shown that each was an important step in the evolution of the world's worst tyrannies.

because the people who promote these steps are well-meaning reformers who would use force only to build a
better world.