Political Mythology 101 (Part Three)

The first two parts of this series addressed a number of patent falsehoods that people are taught concerning political power (i.e., “representative government,” “consent of the governed,” etc.). But in addition to exposing and refuting such aspects of political mythology one by one, there is a way to demolish the entire notion of civil “government,” and everything that goes along with it.

All the radio and TV shows about “legality” and “crime,” all the talking heads blathering on about “public policy,” all the articles about who should be in power and what they should do with that power, all the “law” books, schools, courts, etc.—in short, everything relating to “politics” is provably irrational, artificial, nonsensical, bogus and invalid. And proving that is quite easy.

All such discussions and bickerings depend upon a single concept: political “authority.” To be clear, the “authority” referred in this context—the type of “authority” that cannot actually exist—is the moral right to rule. The term “government” implies legitimacy. The difference between “government” and any other organized crime syndicate or street gang is that most of the victims of “government” coercion and extortion view their own victimization as “legal,” valid, and even necessary. The various myths addressed above are examples of the rhetoric and propaganda used to train subjects to view their own subjugation as proper and good, and to view disobedience to their victimizers as being “illegal,” “criminal,” and immoral.

But the very notion of “government” is based entirely on lies, distortions and fabrications. Below are several independent proofs that there is no such thing, has never been such thing, and can never be such thing, as legitimate political “authority.” These proofs are so simple and obvious that they are basically self-evident, and yet many years of authoritarian indoctrination—from schools, parents, the media, and those in power—has made it very difficult for most people to grasp the simple reality of the situation.

1 - Delegating Powers

No matter how complicated and involved the related documents and rituals may be—constitutions, petitions, elections, legislation, appointments, rulings, etc.—it is self-evident that people cannot delegate rights to others that none of those people had themselves in the first place. For example, ten people who do not have the moral right to murder and rob others cannot possibly give such a right to someone else. And the numbers involved are irrelevant. A million people—or a billion people—cannot, by any means or mechanism, delegate to someone else a right which none of those people had, any more than they could give someone else an apple if none of them had an apple to begin with. This simple truth, all by itself, demolishes even the possibility of legitimate “government,” as every ruling class claims to have the right to do things that normal people have no right to do, while at the same time claiming that they got such rights from the people themselves (via elections, for example). Again, the excuses for the belief in the “Divine Right of Politicians” (the essence of statism) is more complicated, but no more rational than the old excuses for the “Divine Right of Kings.”

2 - Altering Morality

For the “laws” of “government” to be valid logically requires that the legislative rituals conducted by mere mortals can actually alter morality. If “obeying the law” is inherently good and “breaking the law” is inherently bad, that means that the day some behavior or action is “outlawed,” morality has changed. For example, if one day some legislature bans the private possession of a certain type of weapon, in the authoritarian paradigm that means that a certain act was perfectly acceptable and allowable one day, but the next day was “criminal” and wrong, to the point of justifying the forced kidnapping and caging of whoever “broke the law” by engaging in such an activity. For this to be true necessarily means that legislators have the ability to alter morality, to make right into wrong, good into bad, and vice versa. Given that politicians are only mere mortals—and not particularly honest or trustworthy ones at that—this is impossible.

3 - Obligation to Obey

The right of “government” legislatures to rule logically implies the obligation of their subjects to obey. But whenever the commands of a supposed “authority” go against an individual’s own conscience and moral judgment, he is either obligated to “break the law” and disobey “authority” in order to do what he thinks is right, or he is morally obligated to obey and comply, even though it means doing something that he personally deems to be morally wrong. The latter option is entirely schizophrenic and irrational. To simply describe it accurately illustrates the inherent insanity of it: “if authority commands it, you should feel morally obligated to do what you think is morally wrong.” However one determines right and wrong, and however flawed an individual’s perceptions or moral judgment may be, it is logically absurd to say that he should feel a moral obligation to do what he thinks is morally wrong. And yet to feel beholden to any “government” or other external “authority” requires believing exactly that.

In conclusion, the debate over how big “government” should be, and exactly what it should do, is no more rational or useful than debating how magic flying unicorns should solve all the woes of human society. Making dire predictions about how horrible things would be if magic flying unicorns didn’t exist is also a pointless discussion. Hallucinations cannot solve real world problems. Political “authority” is not real. It never has been. And getting mankind to understand that, and to change its perceptions and actions accordingly, would drastically decrease the injustice and suffering in the world.

(P.S. This subject is addressed in further detail in my book, “The Most Dangerous Superstition.”)

https://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Rose-ebook/dp/B00UV41W2U/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1470933486