Anti-State / The Religion of Government

These are various excerpts from The Most Dangerous Superstition, by Larken Rose, and There’s No Government Like No Governement, by Jackney Sneeb.

This writing is meant to serve as a resource to debunk most of the common State propaganda one may encounter. –Redblood Blackflag

The belief in “government” is, in fact, a religion, with all the same structure of any other superstition dedicated to the worship of a supreme entity that has no basis in reality. It has:

1) a pope (president/prime minister)

2) councils (congress/parliament)

3) tithing (taxes)

4) commandments (laws)

5) sects (political parties)

6) heretics (anarchists)

7) protestant reformers (Libertarians)

8) a devil (any foreign bogeyman or dictator)

9) catechisms (party platforms)

10) doctrine (ideology)

11) rituals (voting)

12) prayer (pledge of allegiance, loyalty oaths)

13) crusades (wars to make the world safe for “democracy,” etc)

14) brainwashing (brainwashing)

15) blind faith (blind faith)

16) zealotry (zealotry)

“If you don’t vote you can’t complain.”

This is probably the number one self-perpetuating shibboleth in the state’s propaganda arsenal. It looks like it makes sense — after all, you had your chance to make your choice, right? The logical problem here is the failure to recognize a person’s right to not choose someone to rule over him and everyone else. Just because person ‘A’ wants to belong to a group doesn’t give the group the right to order person ‘B’ around, who refuses to join that group. It makes no more sense to say that than it would if the Baptists armed themselves and started ordering everyone around. So in that case, if you refused to get baptized, would you lose your right to complain about the Baptists ordering you around?

When you vote, it is you voters who have no business complaining about the results. Didn’t you agree to abide by the results of the election, no matter who won? Didn’t you vote to give politicians your consent to be governed? Aren’t your politicians merely representing you whenever they do their evil crap? If so, how can you then bitch when they act like politicians and lie, steal, cheat, and break their campaign promises? You gave them your permission to do whatever the hell they want to you, on your behalf. Otherwise, whatis the purpose of voting, anyway?

Here is the mistake the authoritarian makes when he tries to justify voting to conjure up authority. He thinks he is delegating the right to rule himself when he votes, where-

A = the right to rule one’s self

B = the right to rule other people.

Where he gets confused is when he votes to delegate right ‘A’ to people in ‘government,’ thinking he is delegating his own right to rule himself. If Bob the statist wants George the Candidate to have the right to rule him, he votes for George to have Right ‘A.’ The problem is that George already has right ‘A’ — the right to rule himself- while Bob mistakenly thinks he is giving George right ‘B’- the right to rule others (i.e., Bob). Since Bob doesn’t have Right ‘B,’ he cannot delegate it to someone else. Can he delegate the right to kick you in the shins if he himself doesn’t have that right? Of course not.

Bob might be able to delegate ‘A,’ the specific right to rule himself (i.e., only Bob), in theory. Naturally, he would always have the right to take back his consent to be ruled, making that delegation null and void at Bob’s discretion, which makes even that an absurdity. However, that is not the same as delegating the general right to rule others (‘B’), with the resultant delegation (by voting) giving George the right to rule people that Bob has no right to rule. So, when Bob thinks he is delegating right ‘A,’ while actually attempting to delegate right ‘B,’ he is trying to delegate a right he does not have, which is impossible- and since everyone (including George) already has right ‘A,’ voting is really just a meaningless and superstitious cult ritual.

Jackney Sneeb, There’s No Government Like No Government 


Myth of Consent 

 There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats of violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”—both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing”—one person controlling another. Since these two—”consent” and “governing”—are opposites, the concept of “the consent of the governed” is logically impossible. If there is mutual consent, it is not “government”; if there is governing, there is no consent.

Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else, “I agree to let you forcibly control me,” the moment the controller must force the “controllee” to do something, there is obviously no longer “consent.” And prior to that moment, there is no “governing”—only voluntary cooperation. Simply expressing the concept more precisely exposes the schizophrenia and lunacy it requires: “I agree to let you force things upon me, whether I agree to them or not.”

(Some will claim that a majority, or “the people” as a whole, have given their “consent” to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns the concept of “consent” on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give “consent” for something to be done to someone else. That is simply not what “consent” means. Anyone who says, “I give my consent for you to be robbed,” has either bad English skills or bad logic skills. Yet that is the basis of the cult of “democracy”: the notion that a majority can give “consent” on behalf of a minority. That is not “consent of the governed”; it is forcible control of the governed, with the “consent” of a third party.)

Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition

Government does not exist.

Most people believe that “government” is necessary, though they also acknowledge that “authority” often leads to corruption and abuse. They know that “government”can be inefficient, callous, unfair, unreasonable and oppressive, but they continue to believe that “authority” can be a force for good. What they fail to realize is that the problem is not just that “government” produces inferior results on a practical level, or that “authority” is often abused, or that there is too much “authority.” The problemis that the concept itself is utterly irrational and self-contradictory. It is nothing morethan a superstition, devoid of any logical or evidentiary support, which people hold only as a result of constant cult-like indoctrination designed to hide the logical absurdity of the concept. It is not a matter of degree, or how it is used. The problem is that “authority” does not and cannot exist at all, and failure to recognize that fact has led billions of people to believe things and do things that are horrendously destructive. The truth is that there can be no such thing as good “authority”—in fact, there is no such thing, and can be no such thing, as “authority” at all. As strange as that may sound, it is quite easy to logically prove.

In short, government does not exist. It never has and it never will. The politicians are real, the soldiers and police who enforce the politicians’ will are real, the buildings they inhabit are real, the weapons they wield are very real, but their supposed “authority” is not. And without that “authority,” without ther right to do what they do, they are nothing but a gang of thugs. The term “government” implies legitimacy —it means the exercise of “authority” over a certain people or place. The way peoples peak of those in power, calling their commands “laws,” referring to disobedience to them as a “crime,” and so on, implies the right of “government” to rule, and a corresponding obligation on the part of its subjects to obey. Without the right to rule (“authority”), there is no reason to call the entity “government,” and all of the politicians and their mercenaries become utterly indistinguishable from a giant organized crime syndicate, their “laws” no more valid than the threats of muggers and carjackers. And that, in reality, is what every “government” is: an illegitimate gang of thugs, thieves and murderers, masquerading as a rightful ruling body.

(The reason the terms “government” and “authority” appear inside quotation marks throughout this book is because there is never a legitimate right to rule, so government and authority never actually exist. In this book such terms refer only to the people and gangs erroneously imagined to have the right to rule.)

All mainstream political discussion—all debate about what should be “legal” and “illegal,” who should be put into power, what “national policy” should be, how “government” should handle various issues—all of it is utterly irrational and a complete waste of time, as it is all based upon a false premise: that one person can have the right to rule another, that “authority” can even exist. The entire debate about how “authority” should be used, and what “government” should do, is exactly as useful as debating how Santa Claus should handle Christmas. But it is infinitely more dangerous. On the bright side, removing that danger—the biggest threat that humanity has ever faced, in fact—does not require changing the fundamental nature of man, or converting all hatred to love, or performing any other drastic alteration to the state of the universe. Instead, it requires only that people recognize and then let go of one particular superstition, one irrational lie that almost everyone has been taught to believe. In one sense, most of the world’s problems could be solved over-night if everyone did something akin to giving up the belief in Santa Claus.

Any idea or proposed solution to a problem which depends upon the existence of “government” (and that includes absolutely everything within the realm of main-stream politics) is inherently invalid. To use an analogy, two people might engage in a useful, rational discussion about whether nuclear power or hydroelectric damsare the better way to produce electricity for their town. But if someone suggested that a better option would be to generate electricity using magic pixie dust, his comments would be and should be dismissed as ridiculous, because real problems cannot be solved by mythical entities. Yet almost all modern discussion of societal problems is nothing but an argument about which type of magic pixie dust should be used to save humanity. All “political” discussion rests upon an unquestioned but false assumption, which everyone takes on faith, simply because they see and hear everyone else repeating the myth: the notion that some people can have the right torule others—the myth that there can be such a thing as legitimate “government.”

The problem with popular misconceptions is just that: they are popular. And when any belief—even the most ridiculous, illogical belief—is held by most people, it will not feel unreasonable to the believer. Continuing in that belief will be easy and will feel safe, while questioning it will be uncomfortable and very difficult, if not imposs-ible. Even undeniable, widespread evidence of the horrendously destructive power of the myth of “authority,” on a nearly incomprehensible level and stretching back for thousands of years, has not been enough to make more than a handful of people even begin to question the fundamental concept. And so, believing themselves to beenlightened and wise, human beings continue to stumble into one colossal disaster after another, as a result of their inability to shake off the most dangerous superstition in the history of the world: the belief in “authority.”

Offshoots of the superstition.

There is a large collection of terminology that grows out of the concept of “authority.” What all such terms have in common is that they imply a certain legitimacy to onegroup of people forcibly controlling another group. Here are just a few examples: “Government”: “Government,” as mentioned before, is simply the term for the organization or group of people imagined to possess the right to rule. There are many other terms, describing parts of “government,” which reinforce the supposed legitimacy of the ruling class. These include “president,” “congressman,” “judge,” “legislature,” and so on.

“Law”: The terms “law” and “legislation” have very different connotations from the words “threat” and “command.” The difference, again, depends upon who is issuing and imposing such “laws” upon others, and whether they are imagined to have the right to give and enforce such commands. If “government” issues such commands through the “legislative” process, nearly everyone calls such commands “laws.” If a street gang, on the other hand, issues commands to everyone in its neighborhood, no one calls that “law,” no matter how it is done. In truth, every authoritarian “law” is a command backed by a threat of retaliation against those who do not comply. Whether it is a “law” against committing murder or a “law” against building a deck without a building permit, it is neither a suggestion nor a request, but a command, backed by the threat of violence, whether in the form of forced confiscation of property (i.e., “fines”) or the kidnapping of a human being (i.e., “imprisonment”). What distinguishes “law” from other threats is the perceived “authority” of the ones giving the commands. What might be called “extortion” if the average citizen did it is called “taxation” if done by people who are imagined to have the right to rule.

What would normally be seen as harassment, assault, kidnapping, and other offenses against justice are seen as “regulation” and “law enforcement” when carried out by those claiming to represent “authority.”

(Of course, using the term “law” to describe the inherent properties of the universe,such as the laws of physics and mathematics, has nothing to do with the concept of “authority.” Furthermore, there is another concept, called “natural law,” which is very different from statutory “law” (i.e., “legislation”). The concept of “natural law” is that there are standards of right and wrong intrinsic to humanity that do not depend upon any human “authority,” and that in fact supersede all human “authority.” Though that concept was the topic of many discussions in the not-too-distant past, it is rare to hear Americans using the term “law” in such a context today, and that concept is not what is meant by “law” in this book.)

“Crime”: The flip side of the concept of “law” is the concept of “crime”: the act of disobeying a “law.” The phrase “committing a crime” obviously has a negative connotation. The notion that “breaking the law” is bad implies that the command (i.e., “law”) being disobeyed is inherently legitimate, based solely upon who gave the command (namely, “government”). For example, if a street gang tells a store owner,”You give us half of your profits, or we hurt you,” no one would use the term “criminal” to describe the store owner if he resisted such extortion. But if the same demand is made by those wearing the label of “government,” with the demand being called “law” and “taxes,” then that very same store owner would be viewed, by almost everyone, as a “criminal” if he refused to comply.The terms “crime” and “criminal” do not, by themselves, even hint at what “law” is being disobeyed. It is a “crime” to slowly drive through a red light at an empty intersection, and it is a “crime” to murder one’s neighbors. A hundred years ago itwas a “crime” to teach a slave to read; in 1940s Germany it was a “crime” to hide Jews from the SS; a few decades back it was a “crime” in some states to let blacks andwhites sit together in a restaurant. Most people today, however, would view committing those “crimes” as being perfectly moral.

Literally, committing a “crime” means disobeying the commands of politicians (“lawmakers”), and a “criminal” is anyone who does so. Again, such terms have an obviously negative connotation. Most people do not want to be called a “criminal,” and they mean it as an insult if they call someone else a “criminal.” This gives a clear illustration of the fact that, in the eyes of most people, whether a command islegitimate and should be obeyed depends primarily upon who gave the command (“authority” or not “authority”) rather than upon whether the command itself was inherently justified. Those who disobey (“criminals”) are looked down upon by most people, while it is considered a virtue to be “law-abiding.” Again, the popular feeling is that those who obey “authority” are good, and those who disobey are bad, which implies that the “authority” giving the commands has the legitimate right to do so.

“Lawmakers”: There is a strange paradox involved in the concept of “lawmakers,” in that they are perceived to have the right to give commands, impose “taxes,” regulate behavior, and otherwise coercively control people, but only if they do so via the “legislative” process. The people in “government” legislatures are seen as having the right to rule, but only if they exert their supposed “authority” by way of certain accepted political rituals. When they do, the “lawmakers” are imagined to have the right to give commands (and hire people to enforce them) in situations where normal individuals would have no such right. To put it another way, the general public honestly imagines that morality is different for “lawmakers” than it is for everyone else. Demanding money under threat of violence is immoral theft when most people do it, but is seen as “taxation” when politicians do it. Bossing peoplearound and forcibly controlling their actions is seen as harassment, intimidation and assault when most people do it, but is seen as “regulation” and “law enforcement” when politicians do it. They are called “lawmakers,” rather than “threat-makers,” because their commands—if done via certain “legislative” procedures—are seen as inherently legitimate. In other words, they are seen as “authority,” and obedience to their legislative commands is seen as a moral imperative.

“Law Enforcement”: One of the most common examples of “authority,” which many people see on a daily basis, are the people who wear the label of “police” or “law enforcement.” The behavior of “law enforcers,” and the way they are regarded and treated by others, shows quite plainly that they are viewed not simply as people, but as representatives of a very different entity, something called “authority,” to which very different standards of morality are believed to apply. Suppose, for example, someone was driving down the street, not knowing that one of his brake lights had burned out. If another average citizen not only forced the driver to stop, but then demanded a large sum of money from him, the driver would be outraged. It would be viewed as extortion, harassment, and possibly assault and kidnapping. But when one claiming to act on behalf of “goverment” (“authority”) does the exact same thing, by flashing his lights (and chasing the person down if hedoesn’t stop) and then issuing a “ticket,” it is viewed by most as being perfectly legitimate. This is because the “officer” is not seen as an individual acting on his own, responsible for his own actions, but as an agent of the thing called “authority,” which (by definition) has the right to do things that average citizens do not.

In a very real sense, the people who wear badges and uniforms are not viewed as mere people by everyone else. They are viewed as the arm of an abstract thing called “authority.” As a result, the properness of “police officer” behavior and the righteous-ness of their actions are measured by a far different standard than is the behavior of everyone else. They are judged by how well they enforce “the law” rather than whether their individual actions conform to the normal standards of right and wrong that apply to everyone else. The difference is voiced by the “law enforcers” themselves, who often defend their actions by saying things such as “I don’t make the law, I just enforce it.” Clearly, they expect to be judged only by how faithfully they carry out the will of the “lawmakers,” rather than whether they behave like civilized, rational human beings.

“Countries”: The concepts of “law” and “crime” are obvious offshoots of the concepts of “government” and “authority,” but many other words in the English language areeither changed by the belief in “authority” or exist entirely because of that belief. A “country,” for example, is a purely political concept. The line around a “country” is, by definition, the line defining the area over which one particular “authority” claims the right to rule, which distinguishes that location from the areas over which other “authorities” claim the right to rule.

Geographical locations are, of course, very real, but the term “country” does not merely refer to a place. It always refers to a political “jurisdiction” (another term stemming from the belief in “authority”). When people speak of loving “their country,” they are rarely capable of even defining what that means, but ultimately, the only thing the word “country” can mean is not the place, or the people, or any abstract principle or concept, but merely the turf a certain gang claims the right to rule. In light of that fact, the concept of “loving one’s country” is a rather strange idea. In short, it expresses little more than a psychological attachment to the other subjects who are controlled by the same ruling class—which is not at all what most people envision when they feel national loyalty and patriotism. People may feel love for a certain culture, or a certain location and the people who live there, or to some philosophical ideal, and mistake that for “love of country,” but ultimately, a “country” is simply the area that a particular “government” claims the right to rule.That is what defines the “borders,” and it is those borders which define the “country.”

Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition

State Propaganda:

2.”Without government, there would be no roads.” This is a tie for number one as the most often abused excuse for believing in “government.” Roads are what people use to get from point A to point B. “Government” is an agency that supposedly has the right to make laws in order to protect you from the bogeyman. How on earth do those two match? People build roads, and people make laws, I guess — except that people built roads before there were laws. What do you think — people didn’t go anywhere for thousands of years, they just sat around with their thumbs up their asses waiting and wishing someone would invent politicians to make roads legal? If people can’t build roads without “government,” who builds beaver dams — beaver “governments”? This “government-builds-roads” thing is one of my pet peeves, especially because so many otherwise reasonable people fall for it.

 3. “I can not be trusted to figure out right and wrong for myself.” This is one of the five really loony beliefs I put here to keep some statists from looking completely insane. If you can’t be trusted to determine morality for yourself, either you’re an incompetent human being, or no one else is competent to tell you what to do either. Besides — if you don’t know right from wrong your own self, why in tarnation should you be voting to pick someone to rule over me or anyone else? Whose judgment do you think you use to pick someone to tell you right from wrong? Your own? You just claimed that your judgment sucks swamp water when you answered “True”!

4.”People need to be controlled, lest they run amok.” This is related to number three, except that it’s directed at those other people — you know, the ones who can’t be trusted to determine right from wrong for themselves. Usually the authoritarian will admit that he uses his own judgment to live his life, and in some cases can even prove to a Christian why he doesn’t need a bunch of old men in the bible making commandments for him to obey. Then he goes out of his way to insist that a bunch of old men in congress should make commandments for everyone to obey — including him. Unfortunately, the inevitable result is a kakistocracy, meaning “government by the worst among us.” The bad guys the authoritarians want to be saved from are most likely going to be running for office to have the power to make laws and enforce them. Who else but the worst among us would want to order us around and take our money? Bad guys make bad laws. They also lie, cheat, steal, and break promises — pretty reliable evidence that they really are the bad guys. Yet the authoritarian winds up voting for them to control everyone.

On the flip side, virtually every authoritarian claims that he himself is capable of running his own life — as above, it’s just those other people who can’t. Each one of them wants an agency based on force to control everyone else — each one of whom likewise claims to be able to run his own life. It’s as if no one liked broccoli, and everyone thought everyone else needed broccoli but him. So, everyone votes for everyone else to have broccoli. It’s just as bad to say some people need broccoli, so everyone else must have it, too.

 5.”Anarchy means chaos and destruction.” Anarchy is simply the absence of “government.” It has elements of both chaos and order, since it is part of the same universe that contains elements of both chaos and order. It is no more inherently destructive than evolution. Do animals eat one another? Of course. Is that chaos and destruction? Just for the one being eaten. It is order and justice for the one sustaining its life from the meal. Anarchy doesn’t result in anything by itself. Only real human beings can act chaotic and cause destruction within the framework of liberty we call anarchy. Believing in putting some of them — the worst kind, to boot — in power, giving them guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons and telling them to order us around and take our money is an odd way to prevent “chaos.”

6.”If you don’t pay taxes, you are stealing from society.” Here is a classic case of blaming the victim. “You avoided being robbed, so the thief just takes more from us. Therefore you are the thief.” The income tax is extortion. What difference is there between, a) “Give us your money or we won’t protect you from us,” and b) “Give us your money or we won’t protect you from us,” where ‘a’ is the Mafia and ‘b’ is the IRS? The IRS is an extortionist gang. Keeping our money out of their hands is self-defense.

7.”We all have a moral obligation to obey the law.” This has been overruled by the same cult people claim to believe in when they enter the voting booth: see the Nuremberg trials following World War II for details, or the trial of Lieutenant William Calley over the US Army’s massacre at My Lai, or the Ohio National Guard obeying orders to shoot unarmed college students at Kent State May 4, 1970, for examples of the bad effects of this belief. As if that isn’t enough, review the notorious Obedience Experiments of Stanley Milgram who demonstrated repeatedly that most people will commit lethal violence on others merely because they are told to do so by someone in authority. When the law is immoral, we have a duty to humanity to ignore, disobey, or abolish it.

8.”The United States is a democracy.” Unsubstantiated belief based on societal conditioning, not fact or law. If the US is a democracy, why is George Bush president? Look for the word “democracy” in the constitution. It isn’t there. The founders purposely left it out because they knew that it is a bad idea to let majorities have their way with the rest of us. The constitution purposely guaranteed a Republican form of government to the states. The US is ruled by one minority party elected by members of two rival sub cults, the Republicans and Democrats, divided for propaganda purposes by rhetoric only. The leaders of the two cults offer candidates and the voters vote. If the ruling party agrees with the voters, it lets their decision stand. If not, it overrules them through some legal legerdemain. Each of the two sub cults thinks the other is wicked and trying to destroy freedom, democracy, the constitution, and life as we know it. After the election, the leaders of the two cults get back together and decide how to rule everyone. If you voted, you have surrendered your right to complain about the results. You agreed to abide by them, and obey the winners until next election. Meanwhile, the majority of us made no such agreement. We voted for no one. If democracy existed, No One would be president.


9.”The constitution grants us our rights.” Another civics class-inspired bit of propaganda. The guys who wrote the constitution assumed we all have the same rights as an inherent part of being human. They added the so-called bill of rights as a warning to people in government not to screw with some pretty obvious rights such as freedom of speech and religion (first amendment), self defense (second amendment), and privacy (fourth amendment). The reason they put them there is because they had just violently overthrown their previous government, and they knew what happens to governments that don’t respect rights wealready have. Therefore, the constitution does not grant us our rights — it merely recognizes that we have them, and tells government to keep its hands off. (The fact that it doesn’t work isn’t relevant to this question.)


10.”The government should determine what is right and wrong for us.” This is related to question #7. It is so obviously insane that I put five such questions in the test to keep ordinary state-worshippers from being lumped in the same group with admirers of Genghis Kahn, Kim Jong Il, and Josef Stalin.


11.”Society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm.” Society being an abstraction, it has no brain for decision making, no feelings, and no sense of values in and of itself. Therefore, by definition it can’t have obligations. Only individuals can obligate themselves to a course of action. The question of whether you are your brother’s keeper is essentially a religious one. Strictly speaking, obligations are self-imposedduties. When person ‘A’ imposes a duty on person ‘B’ by force or coercion, it’s slavery. On the other hand, when you assume an obligation, youfreely give the other party a presumptive right to enforce it. A promise to pay later on for goods you bought today is an obligation you freely assumed, and if you don’t pay up the other party has a legitimate claim to restitution.Now, you can assume an obligation on your part to protect the weak and infirm, and you are the one enforcing it since the weak and infirm can’t defend themselves in the first place. However, if you try to impose that obligation on others — i.e., your self-appointed duty to protect the weak and infirm — then you’re enslaving them. This is exemplified by the state when politicians draft young men to go to foreign shores to kill their enemies for them. They will often use the excuse that they’re defending the weak, usually by invoking the old canard about bringing them democracy.I have a hierarchy of obligations. #1 to myself, #2 to my family, #3 to my friends, #4 to my neighbors, and #5 to everyone else. When deciding whether #2 outranks #4 in any given situation, I always pick #2. I might put #2 or #3 before #1 sometimes. We all play this game. It’s called ordering priorities. Each of us uses his own judgment to decide what order to put them in. So, we cannot all have the same obligation to protect the weak and infirm collectively, since each of us determines our priorities differently.


12.”The majority rules.” Obviously untrue. Not only does the majority not rule, the majority probably shouldn’t always get its way. When the majority wanted slavery, they were wrong. When 60% of Californians wanted to keep illegal immigrants from taking advantage of generous social programs, they were the majority. Yet one judge overruled their plebiscite. In reality, politicians let you vote for the candidates and issues they already approved, and if they don’t like the way the majority picked, they’ll override you. “Majority rules” is nothing more than a euphemism for might-makes-right. Politicians know that if one has enough power, he doesn’t need the majority’s approval.


13.”Politicians are our servants.” One of the more absurd examples of public school propaganda. Politicians are not your servants. They are your masters. They write the laws. You don’t. They force you to obey them, not the other way around. You think you have an obligation to obey their ‘laws.’ They agree. You do not institute any rules that restrict politicians, and neither does the majority. You politely ask the politician-gods to control themselves. They don’t. You lose. Tough. This servants of the people and public servant rhetoric is pure bunk. They aren’t there to serve you. They control you and rob you. And you can feel proud in that voting booth when you give them your sanction to do it.


14.”Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” This is an old quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Civilization requires extortion? Civilization means people cooperating and getting along peacefully with one another. That rules out stealing. What I get from that quotation is “We need to institutionalize routine mass theft to prevent random occasional theft.” Not only is it contradictory, it doesn’t even work. Freelance crooks commit random acts of thievery in spite of the law. Thanks to the widespread belief in politicians saving us from the bad guys, the cost to society imposed by ordinary thieves is now dwarfed by the billions of dollars the state steals every year. As Larken Rose says, taxes are the price you pay for being boneheads when it comes to economics.


15.”Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others that have been tried.” –Winston Churchill. Another fine example of political sloganeering based on nothing at all. As was pointed out, democracy doesn’t exist. Besides, if I have no obligation to obey an immoral command made by just one lone dictator, why would that change just because there were a whole lot of other jackasses making the command?

Here is a question that sends many an authoritarian into irrecoverable brain stall: Do you have a moral obligation to obey something politicians scribble on a piece of paper (i.e., a “law”)? One answer makes you an anarchist – the other makes you a candidate for a room in the Bellevue Sanitarium. Besides, can you even know all the laws that might apply to you? Try reading just one piece of them, the tax code, Title 26sometime. Christians at least can name most of the commandments they insist we have an obligation to obey. What about the Cult of Legislation? Can you name all the laws of Congress? If not, what business do you have claiming to obey them? Even if they were inherently righteous commands, you still wouldn’t know what they are. Enforcing them is plain wicked, when there’s no evidence that they are even legitimate. Calling a set of innumerable, unfathomable commandments “democracy” doesn’t make them any more legitimate.

This is better than democracy: self government.


16.”The police have a right to use lethal force in cases where it would be wrong for others to do so.” Here is yet another dead giveaway that state-worship is insane. In what case should person ‘A’ have an exclusive right to inflict death on person ‘B’ just because he is wearing a shiny badge?


17.”The state should have the right to monitor the populace in efforts to provide security.” The state has no rights. While the state is very real, it is made up of lawyers, thugs, con artists, buildings, monuments, laws, traffic signs, and a host of other attributes. It doesn’t have rights, though. Rights are only conceived by individual humans using their individual brains. There is no collective brain of the state. Even the founding document for the republic clearly ascribes rights to the people, while reserving powers (not rights) to government. Whether the state should monitor the population is another example of the Where-Do-You-Draw-the-Line game, based purely on individual judgment.


18.”The lesser of two evils is better than none at all.” In a presidential election, for example, if you settle for the second-worst evil, and the worst evil dies — aren’t you now stuck with the worst evil? Of all the justifications for evil, this is just about the most absurd.


19.”We shouldn’t abolish the state until we have something to replace it with.” This is related to number 18, except that instead of settling for the least onerous of two evils, it suggests that we should embrace an evil because there’s nothing to replace it. It’s as if someone asked, “Would you approve of abolishing rape,” and you answered, “Yes, but only if you can come up with something to replace it.” The state represents institutionalized theft and threats of violence. Why would you need to replace theft and violence as a condition for doing away with it?


20.”Government doesn’t have to be moral, that’s why it’s the government.” This actually came from my page “Every Once In A While An Authoritarian Tells The Truth,” and it is a simplification of what a lawyer told me on the same page:

Me:Can making [extortion] “legal” change the fact that it is WRONG?

Dan Evans: Yes . . .in fact, when you come right down to it, almost everything thatgovernments do would be crimes if committed by individuals.

This is one of the most glaring examples of authoritarian doublespeak. Even the obvious absurdity of such a statement fails to break through years of conditioning in the state-worshipper’s mind.


21.”Politicians are supposed to lie, when it is in the national interest.” Yes, and who determines what the national interest is? [Clue: Not you.]


22.”When in a war, it’s ‘my country, right or wrong!'” One more propagandistic slogan that makes sense only when one believes it can be right to do something wrong.


23.”The government exists to protect the rights of the people.” Give yourself 1/2 point if you thought it said “the government should exist to protect the rights of the people.” In reality, rulers protect their own interests first, and when that conflicts with the rights of the people, the people get screwed. No piece of paper with lofty prose on it can stop those who rule by force and propaganda from acting like rulers who resort to force and propaganda. Here is a link to just one site that demonstrates what your government thinks about protecting your rights: The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You.


24.”Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Right. If you tried to read the tax code at the link I mentioned in question #15, you might see how absurd this is. While in criminal law it is assumed that a person ought to know the law, even then the state admits it needs three lawyers and a jury to determine whether the defendant actually violated a law. Not only that, in some cases the judge tells the jury not to even look at the law, the judge himself will tell them what it says. Who among us is not ignorant of the law? I once asked a lawyer which amendment of the constitution abolished slavery, and he couldn’t answer. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, yet it is only a few pages. How could one of the high priests in the Cult of Legislation not know something as fundamental as that? Yet we are required to know literally millions of words that comprise the laws we live under, local, county, state, and federal?

I’ll test this theory: “It is hereby against the law to pass within three feet of my car while walking. The penalty: I will kick butt.” Now, anytime someone gets within three feet of my car, he gets his ass kicked. Hey, he didn’t know it was against the law. That’s no excuse, right? Looks like anarchy to me.

25.”We need a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies, yet can’t trample on our rights.” The contradiction here is obvious.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s