Let me make clear the meaning of “Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power.” It uses the term “aura of moral legitimacy.” By “aura,” think “appearance.” No street gang has moral legitimacy. No group of people labeling themselves “government” have any moral legitimacy, only an appearance/ a con artist approach to fool the sheep. I suspect now you are in 100% alignment with the voluntaryist statement of principles.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Correct. That is the conclusion. The premise is the constitution grants government its authority. To check that premise, please read the essay “No Treason: The Constitution of no Authority,” by Lysander Spooner.
You did not read the essay. Nor did you address the true/false of the premise how government Is supposed to get it’s authority (moral legitimacy). That is the only premise required to prove whether the conclusion is true or false. Modus ponens or modus tonens.
Why stop at the state level though? Why should Richmond rule over Charlottesville within Virginia? Who made those people my rulers? Why not go further and and further all the way to the individual?
Yes, he lost me in the first sentence. An endless chain of “who appointed these people?” I didn’t sign shit. The constitution does not apply to me. It does not apply to Trump or any other presidents in the past. Or Supreme Court justices or congressmen. They are all frauds. And so at the state level too. There is no federal government and there are no state governments.