Ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attacking the person instead of rationally criticizing what the person says or does. For example, if you say “Firearm ownership is a right.” and I say “Gun owners are nuts who want to shoot everybody!” then I am committing an ad hominem. I am attacking gun owners as persons instead of making an intelligent response to your assertion. This is a logical fallacy. That means it is a logically broken statement. It’s not an effective rebuttal.
Recently, I was accused of not hating the state enough. I thank that person for the external validation. My goal is not to hate the state at all. In fact, I find hating in general to be counter-productive. It clouds the mind’s rational capacity. It weakens the hater. It’s self-destructive to hate. I want to purge all hate from me.
In fact, hating the state is a form of ad hominem. If you hate the state, want to be an enemy of the state and/or want to hurt state-supporters and/or state agents, your energy is illogically misdirected. You’re focusing on attacking the people. You’re not focusing on a reasoned discussion. You’re just saying things like “You suck.” or “You should be killed while you sleep.” (Yikes!)
I can’t speak for you, but my struggle is a principled one. I’m not opposed just to Obama or just to Bush. I’m not opposed just to TSA agents or just to US marshals. I’m opposed to aggression, in whatever form it may take, no matter who wields it.
Are you opposed to bad people (statists)? Or bad ideas (statist philosophy)?
If the former, it makes sense to talk about killing cops and TSA agents.
If the latter, it makes sense to focus on the non-aggression principle and reasoned rebuttals of aggressive ideas.
I’ll take the latter.
btw here is a great quote on this topic (H/T Nick Ford):
”Ž”The hallmark of political anarchism is its opposition to the established order of things: to the state, its institutions, the ideologies that support and glorify these institutions.” -Paul Feyerabend