Larken Rose


(See the note at the end of this book about the “copyright.”)

Copyright 2010, Larken Rose ISDN: 1234-5678-1234 (that’s fake)

Preparing the Reader
What you read in this book will, in all likelihood, go directly against everything you have been taught by your parents and your teachers, everything you have been told by the churches, the media and the government, and almost everything that you, your family and your friends have ever believed. Nonetheless, it is the truth, as you will see if you allow yourself to consider the issue objectively. Not only is it the truth, it may be the most important truth you will ever hear.

But if such a simple truth could change the world, wouldn't we all already know about it, and wouldn't we have put it into practice long ago? If humans were a race of purely thinking, objective beings, yes. But history shows that most human beings would literally rather die than objectively reconsider the belief systems they were brought up in. The average man who reads in the newspaper about war, oppression and injustice will wonder why such pain and suffering is happening, and will wish for it to end. However, if it is suggested to him that his own beliefs are contributing to the pain and suffering, he will almost certainly dismiss such a suggestion without a second thought, and may even attack the one making the suggestion.

More and more people are discovering this truth, but to do so, it is necessary to look past many preconceived assumptions and deeply ingrained superstitions, to set aside one's life-long indoctrination, and to examine some new ideas fairly and honestly. If you do this, you will experience a dramatic change in how you view the world. It will almost certainly feel uncomfortable at first, but in the long run, it will be well worth the effort. And if enough people choose to see this truth, and embrace it, not only will it drastically change the way those people see the world; it will drastically change the world itself, for the better.

So, reader, if your beliefs and superstitions—many of which you did not choose for yourself, but merely inherited as unquestioned "hand-me-down" beliefs—matter to you more than truth and justice, then please stop reading now and give this book to someone else. If, on the other hand, you are willing to question some of your long-held, preconceived notions if doing so might reduce the suffering of others, then read this book. And then give it to someone else.


**************************************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************************** ********************************************************************************* ************************************************************************ **************************************************************** ******************************************************** ************************************************* ****************************************** ************************************ ****************************** ************************* ******************** **************** ************ ********* ****** **** ** *

* ** **** ****** ********* ************ **************** ******************** ************************* ****************************** ************************************ ****************************************** ************************************************* ********************************************************

Th e Most Dang erous Sup er stition
Starting with the Punch Line

Part I

How many millions have gazed upon the brutal horrors of history, with its countless examples of man's inhumanity to man, and wondered aloud how such things could happen? The truth is, most people wouldn't want to know how it happens, because they themselves are religiously attached to the very belief which makes it possible. The vast majority of suffering and injustice in the world, today and spanning back thousands of years, can be directly attributed to one idea. It is not greed or hatred, or any of the other emotions or ideas that are usually blamed for the evils of society. Instead, most of the violence, theft, assault and murder which occurs in the world is the result of a mere superstition—a belief which, though almost universally held, runs contrary to all evidence and reason (though, of course, those who hold the belief do not see it that way). The "punch line" of this book is easy to express, albeit difficult for most people to accept, or even to calmly and rationally contemplate: The belief in "authority" (which includes all belief in "government") is irrational and self-contradictory, it is contrary to humanity and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in "authority" is the arch-enemy of humanity.


The reason it is so important that people understand that fact is that the primary danger posed by the myth of "authority" is to be found not in the minds of the

There is a harsh contrast between what we are taught is the purpose of "authority" (to create a peaceful, civilized society) and the real-world results of "authority" in action. Flip through any history book and you will see that most of the injustice and destruction which has occurred throughout the world was not the result of people "breaking the law," but was the result of people obeying and enforcing the "laws" of various "governments." The evils that have been committed in spite of "authority" are trivial compared to the evils that have been committed in the name of "authority" and "law." Nevertheless, in spite of what the history books show, children are still taught that peace and justice come from authoritarian control, and are taught that, despite the flagrant evils committed by authoritarian regimes throughout the world and throughout history, they are still morally obligated to respect and obey the current "government" of their own country. They are taught that "doing as you're told" is synonymous with being a good person. But it is not. They are taught that "playing by the rules" is synonymous with doing the right thing. But it is not. On the contrary, being a moral person requires taking on the personal responsibility of judging right from wrong and following one's own conscience, which is the opposite of respecting and obeying "authority."

Indeed, the reason the myth of "authority" needs to be demolished is precisely because there is such a thing as right and wrong, and because it does matter how people treat each other, and because people should always strive to live moral lives. Despite the constant authoritarian propaganda claiming otherwise, having respect for "authority" and having respect for humanity are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed. The reason to have no respect for the myth of "authority" is so that we can have respect for humanity and justice.

Of course, nearly everyone is raised to believe the exact opposite: that obedience to "authority" is a virtue (at least in most cases), that respecting and complying with the "laws" of "government" is what makes us civilized, and that disrespect for "authority" leads only to chaos and violence. In fact, people have been so trained to associate obedience with "being good" that attacking the concept of "authority" will sound, to most people, like suggesting that there is no such thing as right and wrong, that there is no need to abide by any standards of behavior, and that there is no need to have any morals at all. That is not what is being advocated here—quite the opposite.


the average reader will find such an assertion hard to swallow. because it forces us imperfect humans to behave in an orderly. Isn't government an essential part of human society? Isn't it the mechanism by which civilization is made possible. even in his own country. posed little or no threat to humanity. There are many useful and legitimate things that benefit human society that people falsely assume require the existence of "government." For example. nor is it a basically valid concept that is sometimes corrupted. Of course." and as a result. while lamenting all the ways in which "authority" has been used as a tool for evil. peaceful manner? Isn't the enacting of common rules and laws what allows us to get along. living in a state of perpetual conflict and chaos? 4 . One nasty individual who loves to dominate others is a trivial threat to humanity unless a lot of other people view such domination as legitimate. "Government" and the exercise of "authority" is not merely a noble idea that sometimes goes wrong. who actually caused the damage done by the Third Reich. Instead." and so felt obligated to obey his commands and carry out his orders. even murder. will still insist that it is possible for "government" to be a force for good. to settle disputes in a civilized manner. injustice and oppression. The average statist (one who believes in "government"). But that is not what "government" is. violent beasts. From top to bottom. end up advocating or even committing acts of aggression. by itself. to work together to achieve common goals. non-violent way? Haven't we always heard that. from start to finish. the twisted mind of Adolf Hitler. to come up with agreements and plans which better allow human beings to exist and thrive in a mutually beneficial and non-violent state of civilization. for example. the problem is not that evil people believe in "authority".controllers in "government" but in the minds of those who are being controlled. In other words. to find ways to cooperate and get along peacefully." It is good. and to trade and otherwise interact in a fair. if not for the "rule of law" and a common respect for "authority. the very concept of "authority" itself is anti-human and horribly destructive. it was the millions of others who viewed Hitler as "authority. for people to organize for mutual defense. the problem is that basically good people believe in "authority. Despite the fact that "governments" always claim to be acting on behalf of the people and the common good. and will still imagine that "authority" can and must provide the path to peace and justice. the truth is that "government." by its very nature. because it is done via the "laws" of "government. is always in direct opposition to the interests of mankind." we would be no better than a bunch of stupid.

though the vast majority do not realize it. it will be shown that when the myth of "authority" is abandoned. It will be shown why. which in reality has never existed and will never exist. can be exceedingly difficult. (The reader is not expected to accept such a startlingly strange claim without ample evidence and sound reasoning.) Finally. the belief is by far the biggest obstacle to mutually beneficial organization. humanity can begin. in order to fully understand why the belief in "authority" truly is the most dangerous superstition in the history of the world. Specifically. so it can be defined and examined objectively. not to mention uncomfortable. when the myth of "authority" is discarded. the concept of "authority" will be distilled down to its most basic essence. it will be shown how the belief in "authority" dramatically impacts both the perceptions and the actions of various categories of people. peaceful people to condone or commit acts of violent. and would even vehemently deny it. And no. leading literally billions of otherwise good. But trying to disentangle our minds from age-old lies. mythological entity.Yes.) 5 . that the underlying premise of all "government" is utterly incompatible with logic and morality. and peaceful coexistence. it will be shown that "government" is a purely religious belief—a faith-based acceptance of a superhuman. cooperation. we have been told that. much will change. In Part III. it will be shown why the belief in "authority" (including all belief in "government") is horrendously dangerous and destructive. immoral aggression. it is not true. First. it will be shown that the concept itself is fatally flawed. In short. and trying to distill the truth out of a jungle of deeply entrenched falsities. In Part II. Contrary to the usual assumption that "no government" would mean chaos and destruction. everyone who believes in "government" does this. In fact. which will be provided. (In fact. in Part IV. the reader will be given a glimpse into what life without the belief in "authority" would look like. the reader will be taken through several stages. Overview ✹ In the following pages. as nearly everyone has been taught. rather than the belief in "government" being conducive to and necessary for a peaceful society. but much will stay the same.

are used constantly by people who have never rationally examined such concepts. the "goodness" of a child is graded. it commands. could also be said to give commands. feel like an attack on morality and civilization itself. have acquired positions of power and control. "Government. the concepts of morality and obedience have become so muddled in most people's minds that any attack on the notion of "authority" will. and that the good people are the ones who do what "authority" tells them to do. ✹ From early childhood. The trouble is that the average person's belief system rests upon a hodge-podge of vague." But that is the opposite of what is being suggested here. living life by the code of "survival of the fittest." 6 ." and then by how well he obeys the "laws" of "government. does not simply suggest or request. then by how well he obeys his "teachers. The first step in trying to understand the nature of "authority" (or "government") is to define what the term means. whether explicitly or implicitly. But that by itself does not give us a sufficient definition. society is saturated with the message that obedience is a virtue. Then again. or bad about it)? Unlike the “commands” of preachers and advertisers. vicious animals." to obey the edicts of those who. What is this thing called "government" (and what's so good about it. but very few are even clear in their own minds about what they mean when they say it. an advertiser who says "Act now!. leaders and citizens. the commands of "govern- "Government" tells people what to do. From the beginning. in one way or another. and what it is. often contradictory concepts and assumptions. concepts such as morality and obedience." however. As a result. As a result of that message. we must begin by clearly defining what it means. we are taught to submit to the will of "authority. to most people. but they are not "government. Almost everyone uses the term." Whether implied or stated. because all sorts of individuals and organizations tell others what to do." or a preacher who tells his congregation what to do. Any suggestion that "government" is inherently illegitimate will sound like suggesting that everyone should behave as uncaring. first by how well he obeys his parents.Identifying the Enemy To assess the concept of "authority" and determine its worth. laws and legislatures.

and criminal." ment" are backed by the threat of punishment. unjustified. because street thugs and bullies also enforce their commands." In the past. What distinguishes a street gang from "government" is how they are perceived by the people whom they control." but these days. To put it another way." and who hand over their money by "paying taxes. most who comply with such commands by "obeying the law." But even that does not give us a complete definition. Likewise. the use of force against those who do not comply. they would do so." and their threats are not called "laws." Their victims may comply with their demands. the concept of "authority" is "Authority" can be summed up as the right to rule. The trespasses. It is not merely the ability to forcibly control others. This is entirely due to how the obedient perceive the ones giving them commands. extortion. assault and murder committed by common thugs are perceived by almost everyone as being immoral. To wit. In the case of "government." on the other hand. but they are not "government. are perceived very differently by most of those at whom the commands are aimed." and disobedience to them is called "crime. they do not imagine him to be "authority. If the ones giving commands are perceived as "authority. which in turn implies a moral obligation on the part of the people to obey those commands. no one takes pride in being robbed by a street gang. It is the supposed moral right to forcibly control others. without the slightest hint of guilt. it is seen as valid and legitimate. but many wear the label of "law-abiding taxpayer" as a badge of honor. When the “lawmakers” in “government” exert power and control over everyone else." The distinguishing feature of "authority" is that it is thought to have the right to give and enforce commands.The demands and commands of those who wear the label of "government. but merely out of fear." a rightful master. The loot they collect is not referred to as "taxes. at least in the Western world. which to some extent nearly everyone possesses." do not do so merely out of fear of punishment if they disobey. those who are caught "breaking the law. If the intended victims of the street gang thought they could resist without any danger to themselves. rightful ruler." its commands are called "laws. robbery. but out of a feeling of duty to obey. to label oneself as a "law-abiding taxpayer" is to brag about one's loyal obedience to "government." 7 . some churches have claimed the right to punish "heretics" and other "sinners. then by definition they are seen as having the moral right to give such commands. "legal" and good. They do not perceive the street thug to be any sort of legitimate. but it is not out of any feeling of moral obligation to obey.

every license and permit. state and local). for example—have the moral right to control others. the notion that some people—as a result of elections or other political rituals. every election and campaign. every political debate and movement—in short. When "the belief in authority" is discussed in this book. to "regulate" certain matters. everything having to do 8 . and being justified based upon who gave the command. is the concept being addressed here. it is important to differentiate between a command being justified based upon the situation. and so on. only they are thought to have the right to wage wars. someone says." It should be stressed that "authority" is always in the eye of the beholder. then the one being controlled sees the controller as "authority. And that idea. that is the meaning being referred to: the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others. but the common denominator is always the perceived legitimacy of the control it exerts over others. the two terms can now be used almost synonymously. since. those others have a moral obligation to obey. When. "I had the authority to stop the mugger and give the old lady her purse back. To be precise. He is simply saying that he believes that certain situations justify giving orders or using force." In fact. only they are thought to have the right to impose "taxes". If one being controlled believes that the one controlling him has the right to do so. The tentacles of the belief in "authority" reach into every aspect of human life. "I had the authority to tell the trespassers to get off my property. unusual rights that others do not possess." or says. consequently. in this day and age." If the one being controlled does not perceive the control to be legitimate.. Only the latter is the type of "authority" being addressed herein. in situations where most people would not. for example. to grant "licenses" for various activities. "authority. though the term "authority" is occasionally used in another sense which tends to muddle this distinction. then the controller is not viewed as "authority" but is seen simply as a bully or a thug. Only those in "government" are thought to have the right to enact "laws".e. each implies the other: "authority" supposedly derives from the "laws" enacted by "government. i." he is not saying that he possesses any special. Every "law" and "tax" (federal." and "government" is the organization imagined to have the right to rule. and that.almost always linked to the idea of "government." In contrast. the concept of "government" is about certain people having some special right to rule. He could just as easily have said "Using force to get a lady's purse back from a mugger is good" or "A land-owner has the right to chase away trespassers.

is just as much a target of the following criticism of "authority" as the "authority" of a supreme dictator would be. however. the only power he really has is the power to terminate the employment arrangement by firing the "underling." from some trivial town ordinance to a "world war"—rests entirely upon the idea that some people can acquire the moral right—in one way or another." which the average citizen has no right to do on his own. no matter how nitpicky." Likewise. such as "tax" and "regulate. For example. or a trainer and the athlete he trains. Nonetheless. because he can quit. a martial arts sensei and his pupil. one who is an expert in some field of thought is often referred to as an "authority. or imprison them for disobedience. voluntary agreement." with the right to do things. if it even constitutes "authority" at all. overbearing or domineering a "boss" may be. in theory. it still claimed to bestow a certain amount of "authority" upon a ruling class. underlying concept of "authority." but which do not actually involve any right to rule. The same is true of other relationships that may resemble "authority.with "government. and as such. The "boss" cannot conscript workers. there are relationships which resemble "authority. the employer-employee relationship is often viewed as if there is a "boss" and an "underling. For example." the right of which to rule was. but it has no bearing on whether the underlying concept is rational. Such a relationship. 9 . is not the type of "authority" that constitutes the most dangerous superstition. the Constitution still sought to create an "authority." And the "underling" has the same power." Whether an "authority" is seen as absolute or as having conditions or limits upon it may have a bearing on how much damage that "authority" does. Even though the Constitution pretended to give the right to rule only over certain specific matters. in which either side is free to opt out of the arrangement. is imagined to have created a very limited "authority. Such scenarios involve arrangements based upon mutual." such as a craftsman and his apprentice. to one degree or another—to rule over others. (The term "authority" is sometimes used in other ways which have nothing to do with the topic of this book." In reality." or an argument about "good government" versus "bad government. severely restricted." but an examination of the fundamental. The United States Constitution. in the hopes that he will benefit from the second person's knowledge or skill. for example.) The issue here is not just the misuse of "authority. where one person chooses to allow another to direct his actions.

as "authority" at all. or that there is too much "authority." The problem is that the concept itself is utterly irrational and self-contradictory. The truth is that there can be no such thing as good "authority"—in fact. so govern- 10 ." and all of the politicians and their mercenaries become utterly indistinguishable from a giant organized crime syndicate. And that. The politicians are real. As strange as that may sound. or that "authority" is often abused. The problem is that "authority" does not and cannot exist at all. in reality. there is no such thing." without the right to do what they do. callous. (The reason the terms "government" and "authority" appear inside quotation marks throughout this book is because there is never a legitimate right to rule. is what every "government" is: an illegitimate gang of thugs. they are nothing but a gang of thugs. Without the right to rule ("authority"). the soldiers and police who enforce the politicians' will are real. and can be no such thing. it is quite easy to logically prove. which people hold only as a result of constant cult-like indoctrination designed to hide the logical absurdity of the concept. thieves and murderers." and so on. The term "government" implies legitimacy—it means the exercise of "authority" over a certain people or place. calling their commands "laws. and failure to recognize that fact has led billions of people to believe things and do things that are horrendously destructive. there is no reason to call the entity "government. implies the right of “government” to rule. though they also acknowledge that "authority" often leads to corruption and abuse. The way people speak of those in power. but their supposed "authority" is not. and a corresponding obligation on the part of its subjects to obey.Government Does Not Exist Most people believe that "government" is necessary. It is nothing more than a superstition. unreasonable and oppressive. It is not a matter of degree. unfair." referring to disobedience to them as a "crime. masquerading as a rightful ruling body. What they fail to realize is that the problem is not just that "government" produces inferior results on a practical level. the weapons they wield are very real. their "laws" no more valid than the threats of muggers and carjackers. but they continue to believe that "authority" can be a force for good. It never has and it never will. And without that "authority. the buildings they inhabit are real. government does not exist. They know that "government" can be inefficient. ✹ In short. devoid of any logical or evidentiary support. or how it is used.

his comments would be and should be dismissed as ridiculous. illogical belief—is held by most people. On the bright side. ment and authority never actually exist. as it is all based upon a false premise: that one person can have the right to rule another. Continuing in that belief will be easy and will feel safe. rational discussion about whether nuclear power or hydroelectric dams are the better way to produce electricity for their town. two people might engage in a useful. To use an analogy. In one sense. or converting all hatred to love." who should be put into power. But it is infinitely more dangerous.The problem with popular misconceptions is just that: they are popular.) 11 . how "government" should handle various issues—all of it is utterly irrational and a complete waste of time. it will not feel unreasonable to the believer. 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. In this book such terms refer only to the people and gangs erroneously imagined to have the right to rule. or performing any other drastic alteration to the state of the universe. that "authority" can even exist. most of the world's problems could be solved overnight if everyone did something akin to giving up the belief in Santa Claus. All "political" discussion rests upon an unquestioned but false assumption. what "national policy" should be. And when any belief—even the most ridiculous. is exactly as useful as debating how Santa Claus should handle Christmas. Even undeniable. one irrational lie that almost everyone has been taught to believe. and what "government" should do. because real problems cannot be solved by mythical entities. simply because they see and hear everyone else repeating the myth: the notion that some people can have the right to rule others—the myth that there can be such a thing as legitimate "government. But if someone suggested that a better option would be to generate electricity using magic pixie dust. Instead." All mainstream political discussion—all debate about what should be "legal" and "illegal. The entire debate about how "authority" should be used. it requires only that people recognize and then let go of one particular superstition. widespread evidence of the horrendously destructive power Any idea or proposed solution to a problem which depends upon the existence of "government" (and that includes absolutely everything within the realm of mainstream politics) is inherently invalid. in fact—does not require changing the fundamental nature of man. removing that danger—the biggest threat that humanity has ever faced. while questioning it will be uncomfortable and very difficult. if not impossible. which everyone takes on faith.

"Government": "Government. issues commands to everyone in its neighborhood.e. Whether it is a "law" against committing murder or a "law" against building a deck without a building permit." "congressman. "fines") or the kidnapping of a human being (i." as mentioned before. every authoritarian "law" is a command backed by a threat of retaliation against those who do not comply. Here are just a few examples: ✹ "Law": The terms "law" and "legislation" have very different connotations from the words "threat" and "command. nearly everyone calls such commands "laws. human beings continue to stumble into one colossal disaster after another. If "government" issues such commands through the "legislative" process. These include "president. is simply the term for the organization or group of people imagined to possess the right to rule. What distinguishes "law" from other threats is the perceived "authority" of the ones giving the commands. on the other hand." If a street gang. 12 ." which reinforce the supposed legitimacy of the ruling class. and whether they are imagined to have the right to give and enforce such 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.. no one calls that "law." "judge. describing parts of "government. but a command." no matter how it is done. whether in the form of forced confiscation of property (i. believing themselves to be enlightened and wise. backed by the threat of violence. In truth. as a result of their inability to shake off the most dangerous superstition in the history of the world: the belief in "authority. it is neither a suggestion nor a request. has not been enough to make more than a handful of people even begin to question the fundamental concept.." on a nearly incomprehensible level and stretching back for thousands of years." What all such terms have in common is that they imply a certain legitimacy to one group of people forcibly controlling another group. And so. depends upon who is issuing and imposing such "laws" upon others. again." "legislature. "imprisonment").e. There are many other terms.of the myth of "authority." Offshoots of the Superstition There is a large collection of terminology that grows out of the concept of "authority." The difference." and so on.

The terms "crime" and "criminal" do not. by almost everyone." which is very different from statutory "law" (i.. kidnapping. Again.e. by themselves. based solely upon who gave the command (namely. would view committing those "crimes" as being perfectly moral. "You give us half of your profits. however. "law") being disobeyed is inherently legitimate.e.) What would normally be seen as harassment." then that very same store owner would be viewed." Though that concept was the topic of many discussions in the not-too-distant past. even hint at what "law" is being disobeyed. if a street gang tells a store owner. 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. or we hurt you. "legislation"). Most people do not want to be called a "criminal." no one would use the term "criminal" to describe the store owner if he resisted such extortion. it is rare to hear Americans using the term "law" in such a context today. called "natural law. The notion that "breaking the law" is bad implies that the command (i. in 1940s Germany it was a "crime" to hide Jews from the SS." and that in fact supersede all human "authority. a few decades back it was a "crime" in some states to let blacks and whites sit together in a restaurant. committing a "crime" means disobeying the commands of politicians (“lawmakers”). For example. A hundred years ago it was a "crime" to teach a slave to read. But if the same demand is made by those wearing the label of "government. "government"). Most people today. (Of course. and that concept is not what is meant by "law" in this book." with the demand being called "law" and "taxes." and they mean it as an insult if they call someone else a "criminal." Furthermore. as a "criminal" if he refused to comply. and a "criminal" is anyone who does so. assault. It is a "crime" to slowly drive through a red light at an empty intersection." The phrase "committing a crime" obviously has a negative connotation. and it is a "crime" to murder one's neighbors. "Crime": The flip side of the concept of "law" is the concept of "crime": the act of disobeying a "law.. there is another concept. and other offenses against justice are seen as "regulation" and "law enforcement" when carried out by those claiming to represent "authority. such as the laws of physics and mathematics." This gives a clear 13 . has nothing to do with the concept of "authority. using the term "law" to describe the inherent properties of the universe." Literally. such terms have an obviously negative connotation.

intimidation and assault when most people do it. They are called "lawmakers. and possibly assault and "Law Enforcement": One of the most common examples of "authority. harassment. while it is considered a virtue to be "law-abiding. If another average citizen not only forced the driver to stop. Demanding money under threat of violence is immoral theft when most people do it. are the people who wear the label of "police" or "law enforcement. but then demanded a large sum of money from him. To put it another way." Again. and those who disobey are bad. and otherwise coercively control people. impose "taxes. which implies that the "authority" giving the commands has the legitimate right to do so. someone was driving down the street. whether a command is legitimate 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. illustration of the fact that. In other words. the general public honestly imagines that morality is different for "lawmakers" than it is for everyone else. but is seen as "regulation" and "law enforcement" when politicians do it.Suppose. shows quite plainly that they are viewed not simply as people." rather than "threat-makers. the driver would be outraged. something called "authority. 14 . "Lawmakers": There is a strange paradox involved in the concept of "lawmakers. but as representatives of a very different entity. It would be viewed as extortion." in that they are perceived to have the right to give commands. for example. in the eyes of most people." to which very different standards of morality are believed to apply." because their commands—if done via certain "legislative" procedures—are seen as inherently legitimate. Bossing people around and forcibly controlling their actions is seen as harassment. they are seen as "authority." regulate behavior. When they do." which many people see on a daily basis. but only if they do so via the "legislative" process. the popular feeling is that those who obey "authority" are good." The behavior of "law enforcers. Those who disobey ("criminals") are looked down upon by most people. not knowing that one of his brake lights had burned out. but is seen as "taxation" when politicians do it. but only if they exert their supposed "authority" by way of certain accepted political rituals. 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." and obedience to their legislative commands is seen as a moral imperative." and the way they are regarded and treated by others. The people in "government" legislatures are seen as having the right to rule.

A "country. who often defend their actions by saying things such as "I don't make the law. They are viewed as the arm of an abstract thing called "authority." rather than whether they behave like civilized. When people speak of loving "their country. but the term "country" does not merely refer to a place. the properness of "police officer" behavior and the righteousness 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. very real." they are rarely capable of even defining what that means. In light of that fact. But when one claiming to act on behalf of "goverment" ("authority") does the exact same thing. the people who wear badges and uniforms are not viewed as mere people by everyone else. of course. the only thing the word "country" can mean is not the place." for example. but merely the turf a certain gang claims the right to rule. responsible for his own actions. 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. or any abstract principle or concept. It always refers to a political "jurisdiction" (another term stemming from the belief in "authority"). they expect to be judged only by how faithfully they carry out the will of the "lawmakers." but many other words in the English language are either changed by the belief in "authority" or exist entirely because of that belief. 15 ." As a result. or the people." which (by definition) has the right to do things that average citizens do not. I just enforce it. Geographical locations are. rational human beings. The difference is voiced by the "law enforcers" themselves. The line around a "country" is." Clearly. but as an agent of the thing called "authority. the concept of "loving one's country" is a rather strange idea. by definition. is a purely political concept.kidnapping. but ultimately. People may feel "Countries": The concepts of "law" and "crime" are obvious offshoots of the concepts of "government" and "authority. In a very real sense." it is viewed by most as being perfectly legitimate. which distinguishes that location from the areas over which other "authorities" claim the right to rule. the line defining the area over which one particular "authority" claims the right to rule. In short. This is because the "officer" is not seen as an individual acting on his own. by flashing his lights (and chasing the person down if he doesn't stop) and then issuing a "ticket.

Since these two—"consent" and "governing"—are opposites. But the relationship of a perceived "authority" to his subject is very much the relationship of a slave master (owner) to a slave (property). A lot of verbal gymnastics. or to some philosophical ideal." ✹ The Myth of Consent In the modern world. or a certain location and the people who live there. The second can be labeled "governing"—one person controlling another." but ultimately. slavery is almost universally condemned." even though most of it is completely illogical and flies in the face of all evidence. The following covers a few of the popular types of propaganda used to obfuscate the nature of "authority." and it is those borders which define the "country. if there is governing. Not wanting to admit that. That is what defines the "borders. a "country" is simply the area that a particular "government" claims the right to rule. the concept of "the consent of the governed" is a contradiction. much rationalizing and obfuscating has been done in an attempt to deny the fundamental nature of what "government" is: a ruling class. This mythology is taught to children as "civics." There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement. and mistake that for "love of country." Attempting to Rationalize the Irrational ✹ People who consider themselves educated. One example of this is the phrase "consent of the governed. or even the subjects of a ruling for a certain culture. 16 . The first can be labeled "consent"—both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. it is not "government". or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. open-minded and progressive do not want to think of themselves as the slaves of a master. those who believe in "authority" are trained to memorize and repeat blatantly inaccurate rhetoric designed to hide the true nature of the situation. misleading terminology and mythology has been manufactured to try to obscure the true relationship between "governments" and their subjects. If there is mutual consent. and not wanting to condone what amounts to slavery. there is no consent. Because of this.

" (Some will claim that a majority. "If you want to ride in my car. there is obviously no longer "consent.) Though it is constantly parroted as gospel. or country altogether. whether I agree to them or not. by merely living in a town. "By driving a car in this neighborhood on Sunday. it is forcible control of the governed. state. But such an argument turns the concept of "consent" on its head. Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else. It is one thing for someone to say. even more bizarre.But the fact of the matter is. state. there is no "governing"—only voluntary cooperation. he is free to leave the town. Whoever has the right to "make the rules" for a 17 ." or "You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off." One person obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else "agreeing" to something. That is not "consent of the governed". Simply expressing the concept more precisely exposes the schizophrenia and lunacy it requires: “I agree to let you force things upon me. with the "consent" of a third party. or country. have given their "consent" to be ruled. can give "consent" for something to be done to someone else. So. you are agreeing to give me your car. It defies logic to say." the moment the controller must force the "controllee" to do something. That is simply not what "consent" means.” Yet that is the basis of the cult of "democracy": the notion that a majority can give "consent" on behalf of a minority. An "agreement" is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into some arrangement. in order to fabricate "consent" where there is none. believers in "authority" add another." And prior to that moment." It is quite another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property. It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him. nor is living in one's own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules. or a country. "I agree to let you forcibly control me. you may not smoke. and if he chooses not to leave. that constitutes giving his "consent" to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction. The idea is that if someone does not like the rules. step to the mythology: the notion of "implied consent. "I give my consent for you to be robbed. or a state. individually or as a group. one is “agreeing” to abide by whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that town. the idea defies common sense. No one. even if many individuals have not. Being born somewhere is not "agreeing" to anything. no one ever agrees to let those in "government" do whatever they want." The claim is that. or "the people" as a whole.

or even building it himself. Of course. so anyone living here has to do whatever I say. that means that not only is the house the property of the politicians. a different "country. But more to the point. It would be no different from a single lunatic today saying. has a right to tell visitors what they can and cannot do as long as they are in the house. The owner of a house has the right to keep others out of it and. with the only choice being which master he wants to own him. the only real power he has is to tell people to leave.. "I hereby declare North America to be my rightful domain. the owner of that place. 18 .e. but the person's time and effort (which he invested in the house) are also the property of the politicians.(The belief that politicians own everything is demonstrated even more dramatically in the concept of immigration "laws. i. that is not what "consent" means. which is that "getting out" would only relocate the individual to some other giant slave plantation." The idea that a human being needs permission from politicians to set foot anywhere in an entire country—the notion that it can be a "crime" for someone to step across an invisible line between one authoritarian There is also a practical problem with the "obey or get out" mentality." The end result is that everyone on earth is a slave. The believers in "government" never explain how it is that a few politicians could have acquired the right to unilaterally claim exclusive ownership of thousands of squares miles of land (where other people were already living) as their territory. If you don't like it. And. the master does not need the consent of his slave. and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or to get out. by extension." And that sheds some light on the underlying assumption behind the idea of "implied consent. a homeowner has no right to hold someone hostage. particular place is. to rule and exploit as they see fit. you can leave. and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. by definition. This completely rules out actual freedom. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home. of course. That is the basis of the idea of private property: that there can be an "owner" who has the exclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property. And for one person's time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the "implied consent" theory implies: that every "country" is a huge slave plantation." To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the "country" or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the "country" is the property of the politicians.

" on a regular basis. but it also obviously does not describe reality. One group tells the other group where they can live. despite the fact that they are constantly parroted by rulers and subjects alike." Enforcement happens only if someone does not consent to something. Any "government" that had the "consent" of its subjects would not need. If a citizen is not allowed to hire an "illegal alien. Anyone with their eyes open can see that "government. then that individual citizen owns nothing." there are other sayings and dogmatic rhetoric that are often repeated. border guards." Schoolchildren are taught to repeat this utter absurdity. The differences between the rulers and the ruled are many and obvious. and all of the other mercenaries of the state. where they can work. if he is at all honest with himself.) Not only is the theory of "implied consent" logically flawed. "law enforcers. is utterly ridiculous. by brute force if necessary. and everyone else either complies or is punished." is not allowed to trade with him. the other group pays. One group commands.jurisdiction into another—implies that the entire country is the property of the ruling class." All of these aphorisms are blatantly and obviously untrue. More Mythology ✹ In addition to the myth of "the consent of the governed. in the United States the people are taught—and faithfully repeat—such ideas as "We are the government" and "The government works for us" and "The government represents us. judges. For example. is not even allowed to invite an "illegal" into his own home. knows that those in power do not care whether he consents to abide by their "laws. what 19 . and to still claim that "government" does what it does with the consent of the people. with or without any individual's consent. inspectors and regulators. narcotics agents. beat cops. and the politicians own everything. It is insane to deny that in the United States there is a ruling class and a subject class. despite being completely inaccurate. prosecutors. One group demands huge sums of money. Each individual. To be aware of the myriad of tax collectors. and would not have. soldiers. the other obeys. does things to a lot of people against their will and without their consent. One of the most bizarre and delusional (but still very common) claims is that "We (the people) are the government. even though everyone is fully aware that the politicians issue commands and demands." The politicians' orders will be carried out.

" by any stretch of the imagination.they can eat. but the underlying abstract theory is inherently flawed as well. he is not your servant. because of what "government" is. it is patently obvious who commands and who obeys. One group consists entirely of economic parasites. selling off power and influence to whomever gives them the most money. are "choosing their leaders. so-called "representative governments" are constantly doing things their subjects do not want them to do: increasing "taxes. In the real world. sending armed enforcers after us if we disobey? It is impossible for "government" to ever be the servant. by electing certain people into positions of power." Again. not only does this claim not at all match reality. and it requires profound denial to believe otherwise. if someone can boss you around and take your money. For example. To imagine that a ruler could ever be the servant of those over whom he rules is patently absurd. who they can work for. In this system. it is also claimed that "the government works for us." Again. such a statement does not even remotely match the obvious reality of the situation. Most never wonder—if "government" works for us." and that those in office are merely representing "the will of the people. is the notion of "representative government. "government" is the organization thought to have the right to forcibly control the behavior of its subjects via "laws. while the other group produces all of the wealth. and so on. and if he cannot do those things. a delusion intentionally programmed into the populace in order to twist their view of reality. 20 . personal terms. The people are not the "government. And most never even question it. Every taxpayer can easily think of examples of things funded with his money An even more prevalent lie. To put it in simple. it is our servant.” However limited. and so on. used to try to hide the master-slave relationship between "government" and the public. what work they can do." rendering the popularly accepted rhetoric about “public servants” completely ridiculous. what they can drive. One group takes (and spends) trillions of dollars of what the other group earns." The claim is that the people. it is little more than a cult mantra." engaging in warmongering. Yet that impossibility is spouted as indisputable gospel in "civics" classes. But other myths are also used to try to make that lie sound rational. he is not “government. what they can drink. if it is our employee—why does it decide how much we pay it? Why does our "employee" decide what it will do for us? Why does our "employee" tell us how to live our lives? Why does our "employee" demand our obedience for whatever arbitrary commands it issues.

" or raises "taxes. One master may whip his slaves less severely than another. Average citizens have no right to forcibly control the choices of their neighbors. it would not be serving "the people" as a whole.Even in theory. or had hired or instructed someone else to do such things. and wherever there is a disagreement." To wit." The terminology does not match reality. corrupt. different people want "government" to do different things.” etc. it is not "representing" anyone or anything but itself. it would be forcibly victimizing various smaller groups on behalf of larger groups. one who "represents" someone else cannot have more rights than the one he "represents. "government" will always be going against the will of at least some of the people. Furthermore. even those who talk about "representative government" refuse to accept any personal responsibility for actions taken by those for whom they voted." There is no one who can honestly say that ”government” does everything that he wants and nothing that he does not want. But in the case of "government. To represent someone is to act on his behalf. and punish them if they disobey. the voters never feel the same guilt or shame they would feel if they themselves had personally done such things. because "government" cannot possibly represent the people as a whole unless everyone wants exactly the same thing. This fact demonstrates that even the most enthusiastic voters do not actually believe the rhetoric about "representative government. Interestingly. Even if a "government" did exactly what a majority of its subjects told it to (which never happens in the real world)." the people whom the politicians claim to "represent" have no right to do anything that politicians do (imposing “taxes. So when a "government" does such things. If their candidate of choice enacts a harmful "law. handouts to certain individuals." or wages war. and the only purpose of the rhetoric is to obfuscate the fact that the relationship between every "government" and its subjects is the same as the relationship between a master and a slave. if one person has no right to break into his neighbor's house and steal his valuables. inefficient bureaucratic machine of "government. that he objects to. one master may 21 . tell them how to live their lives." and do not view politicians as their "representatives.” enacting “laws. and a true representative can only do what the person he represents has the right to do. or just the overall wasteful. government actions that infringe on individual rights.). Of course. whether it be handouts to huge corporations. then he also has no right to designate a "representative" to do that for him. the concept of "representative government" is inherently flawed.

" Or they may claim.(Another example of irrational statist doctrine is the concept of the "rule of law. one master may take better care of his slaves—but none of that changes the basic. that is government. "When people collectively decide the way things like roads and commerce and property rights will work in their town. The only way he could do so is by ceasing to be a slave owner (i." None of those statements are true." They may argue. And that is true even when people choose to describe the situation using inaccurate rhetoric and deceptive euphemisms. There would be a difference between "rule of law" and "rule of men" only if the so-called "laws" were written by something other than men. that's government. "Once people cooperate to form an organized system of mutual defense. however. reveals the absurdity of this myth." Or they may say." ✹ The Secret Ingredient In their attempts to justify the existence of a ruling class ("government"). reasonable rules being imposed upon humanity equally.e." "consent of the governed." The idea is that rule by mere men is bad. and for the people." while it makes nice feel-good political rhetoric. underlying nature of the masterslave relationship. the notion of "government of the people. "When people pool their resources. legitimate. A moment's thought.. In other words. A ruling class cannot serve or represent those it rules any more than a slave owner can serve or represent his slaves. statists often describe perfectly reasonable. infallible set of rules which spontaneously flows from the nature of the universe. "government" cannot and will not serve the people unless and until it ceases to be "government. Likewise. that's government. Despite the fact that "the law" is often spoken of as some holy. the one with the obligation to obey is the slave. the only way a ruling class could become a servant of the people is by ceasing to be a ruling class. by freeing his slaves). 22 . because it serves those with a malicious lust for power." and "will of the people. in reality "the law" is nothing more than a collection of commands issued by politicians. by the people. to do things collectively rather than each individual having to do everything for himself.) In short. while the "rule of law"—as the theory goes—is all about objective. The one with the right to rule is the master." allow his slaves to keep more of what they produce. useful things. is a logical impossibility. such as "representative government. and then proclaim them to be "government.

mercenaries. information. protection.—engage in cooperative. shelter. the ability to control modern populations—especially armed populations—depends entirely upon the perceived legitimacy of the would-be controllers. They do not just happen as a result of people being civilized and organized. The only way to control a large population today is for the would-be ruler to first convince the people that he has the moral right to exert control over them." "Government" is not organization. 23 . legitimate." In fact." no amount of cooperation or organization would ever become "government. They are entirely the product of the myth that "someone has to be in charge. nor do they evolve out of people preparing and providing for their mutual defense. football teams.And that fact relates to another claim of statists: that doing away with "government" would simply result in violent gangs gaining power. so much so that it would be nearly impossible. become a new "government. which would. The specter of a gang of ruthless thugs taking over a country may make for an entertaining movie. Today. Such assertions are intended to make "government" sound like a natural. spies. "governments" are not the result of either economics or basic human interaction. etc. cooperation. archery clubs. mutually beneficial collective actions. but they are not called "government. A system of organization cannot magically become “government” any more than a security guard can magically become a king. But all of them completely miss the fundamental nature of "government.). to rule any population of significant size by brute force alone would require an enormous amount of resources (weapons. it will not be seen as "government. (There is a fundamental difference between "How can we effectively defend ourselves?" and "I have the right to rule you!") Contrary to what civics textbooks may claim. he can acquire dominion only if he can first hammer the myth of "Governments" do not just evolve out of supermarkets or football teams. or mutual agreement. or anything else) to transform into a rightful ruler. etc. and useful part of human society." But violent conquest does not naturally become "government" any more than peaceful cooperation does. And that is the secret ingredient that makes something "authority": the supposed right to forcibly control others." It requires a drastic change in public perception for a service provider (whether the service is food." Without the superstition of "authority. Unless the new gang is imagined to have the right to rule. in turn. Countless groups and organizations—supermarkets. but it cannot actually happen in a country equipped with even basic communications and firearms." because they are not imagined to have the right to rule. car companies.

brute force alone will not provide him with any lasting power. To exercise that right. Statists will claim that someone has to be in charge. whether real or imagined. Likewise. the politicians. in the Declaration of Independence) that it is possible. are very real. large-scale food production automatically constitutes "government." Every individual has the right to defend himself (and others) against attackers. But an organization which did only that would not be "government. would not be "government" any more than organized." they will not need any revolution to be free." that society needs rulers. and the mercenaries who carry out their threats.It should also be mentioned that some have claimed (including Thomas Jefferson. but without perceived legitimacy. or if he never achieves it to begin with. once the people as a whole free themselves from the myth of "authority. do something other than what average people have the right to do. by definition. because the only place it has ever existed is in the minds of those who still believe in the superstition of "authority. "government" will simply cease to exist. or there would be constant chaos and bloody mayhem." it must. But if his regime ever loses legitimacy in the eyes of his victims." "authority" into his intended victims' heads. very little actual force will be required for him to acquire and maintain power. constitute "government. there has to be a master making and enforcing "the rules" on everyone else. by itself. cannot make a mythical entity 24 . to have a "government" which does nothing except protect the rights of individuals." Exercising the right of self-defense (individually or collectively) does not. and desirable. ✹ The Excuse of Necessity The excuse that statists often resort to in the end is that humanity supposedly requires "government. not a "government. large-scale operation. But necessity. even through a very organized. thereby convincing his victims that he is a legitimate and proper "government." In short. A "government" with the same rights as everyone else is not a "government" any more than the average man on the street is "government." Again. neither gangs nor cooperatives can ever become "government" unless the people think that it is possible for someone to have the right to rule them. they are recognized as a gang of power-happy thugs. or the world will come to an end." And if he can accomplish that." as it does not require the right to rule. For something to be "government.

If you jump out of a plane without a parachute. and impossible for one person to acquire the obligation to subjugate himself to another (as proven below). saying that we "need" it is not only pointless but obviously untrue. If "authority" does not and cannot exist. By the same token. We cannot conjure something into existence by sheer willpower. then claiming that such things "need" to happen is an empty argument. as proven below. if it is impossible for one person to acquire the right to rule over another. No one would argue that Santa Claus must be real because we need him in order for Christmas to work. A right to rule is not going to come into existence just because we supposedly "need" it in order to have a peaceful society.real. **************************************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************************** ********************************************************************************* ************************************************************************ **************************************************************** ******************************************************** ************************************************* ****************************************** ************************************ ****************************** ************************* ******************** **************** ************ ********* ****** **** ** * The Disproofs of “Au thorit y” * ** **** ****** ********* ************ **************** ******************** ************************* ****************************** ************************************ ****************************************** ************************************************* ******************************************************** Part II Letting Go of the Myth A growing number of people now believe that "government" is not necessary and ✹ 25 . your "need" for a parachute is not going to make one materialize.

This is not merely a statement of what should be. Others argue that regardless of which "works" better. The difference is that the belief in Santa Claus does little harm. But why 26 . or how well it works on a practical level. if that fact were widely understood. They speak as if there is a choice between having a "government" and not having a "government. Accordingly. "Government" is a logical impossibility. society without a coercive state is the only moral choice. Even most of those who recognize "government" as a huge threat to humanity and civilization speak of doing away with it. He simply stops believing in him." There is not. one who realizes that Santa Claus is not real does not start a crusade to abolish Santa. it is a description of what is." whether moral or not. on a practical level. but that "government"—a legitimate ruling class—does not and cannot exist. it is that it would behoove human beings to accept the fact that a world without "authority" is all that has ever existed. allegedly legitimate mechanism through which they can forcibly control others." but the belief in "government. is pointless. work a lot better without it. while the belief in the mythical beast called "authority" has led to unimaginable pain and suffering. and whether it "works" or not. there is actually a more fundamental point that renders such discussions moot: "authority. While such arguments are both valid and worthwhile. the point of this book is not that "government" should be abolished. as it is the only choice that does not support the initiation of violence against innocent people. and that mankind would be far better off.The message here is not that we should try to create a world without "authority"." By analogy. and that failure to recognize this fact has led to immeasurable suffering and injustice. cannot exist. It is obvious why those who seek dominion over others want "government" to exist: it gives them an easy. that human society would. moral and civilized manner. The problem is not actually "government. ✹ Why the Myth Is Tempting Before demonstrating that "authority" cannot exist. as if it actually exists. oppression and injustice. and people would behave in a far more rational. brief mention should be made of why anyone would want such a thing to exist. or to evict him from the North Pole. If "authority" cannot exist—as will be logically proven below—any debate about whether we "need" it.

" and humanity would degrade into a caveman or "Mad Max" type of existence. with rights that human beings do not have. The mindset of statists (people who believe in "government") usually starts with a reasonable concern. or something in between. there would be little or no cooperation. the belief in "authority" is still an irrational superstition. how is it that the situation would be improved by taking a subset of those very same careless. 27 . fight. etc. but ends with an impossibly insane "solution. the debate between statism and anarchism is often incorrectly assumed to be a question of whether people are inherently good and trustworthy (and therefore need no controllers). and/or malicious that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own. As a result. In truth. all bad. or inherently bad and untrustworthy (and therefore need "government" to control them). without a "government" making and enforcing the rules of society on everyone. many of whom are stupid or hostile. stupid and/or malicious human beings and giving them societal permission to forcibly control all the others? Why would anyone think that rearranging and reorganizing a group of dangerous beasts would make them civilized? The answer hints at the mythological nature of the belief in "authority. whether human beings are all good. but the involvement of some superhuman entity.would anyone else—why would those being controlled—want it to exist? To say that human beings are so flawed that they need to be controlled—a common refrain among statists—implies that something other than human beings needs to do To wit." The average person who looks out at the world. which can be used to keep all the untrustworthy humans in line." It is not merely a different arrangement of human beings that authoritarians seek. every dispute would end in bloodshed. Statists often assert that without a controlling authority. and with virtues that human beings do not have. Most believers in "government" openly describe that as the reason "government" is supposedly needed: because people cannot be trusted. But the most popular excuse for "government"—that people are bad and therefore need to be controlled—inadvertently exposes the insanity inherent in all statism. naturally wants some sort of assurance that he will be protected from all of the negligent and/or malicious things which others may do. it would be "every man for himself. stupid. if human beings are so careless. trade would all but cease. because it is in man's nature to steal. knowing there are billions of human beings out there.

supernatural entity. superhuman. assigning some of the bees the duty of preventing the other bees from doing harm. "breaking the law") is viewed as a sin. Disobedience to the commandments (i. that the "good guys" will win. at least. or that the innocent will be protected and cared for. the solution is to create an authoritarian hierarchy among the bees." would be popularly recognized as immoral acts of aggression.e. above mere mortals. there is no magic trick.. and so on. which issues commandments to the peasantry. The giant. arranging or organizing them differently is not going to change their fundamental nature. such a "solution" is ridiculous. "regulation")." you will find that it is always run entirely by people. unstoppable power that will be used for good.. and which are methodically memorized and repeated by the faithful. The belief is not about reason. The belief is not simply a method of human organization and cooperation. On this planet. But no matter how hard you study "government. such as theft (i. What it will do. the gospel of "government" describes a superhuman.the controlling. What the believers really want out of "government" is some huge. No matter how trustworthy or untrustworthy human beings are. it is all about faith. "taxation"). if not for their perceived "authority. magical savior that statists insist is needed to save humanity from itself does not exist. the belief in "government" is neither a scientific concept nor a rational sociological construct. coercion of innocent people (i. the belief in "government" is a religion. to make sure the "good guys" always win. However dangerous the bees may be. and hallucinating such a superhuman entity does not help anything. political or otherwise. irrational doctrines which fly in the face of both evidence and logic. made up of a set of dogmatic teachings. In truth. Like other religions. capable of guaranteeing that justice will occur. human beings are the top—there is nothing above them to control them and make them behave properly. in the case of "government. and the faithful servants delight in the punishment of the infidels 28 .e.e. for whom unquestioning obedience is a moral imperative. Of course. ✹ The Religion of “Government” The truth is.." is give some human beings societal permission to commit acts which. Saying that "government" is necessary because people are untrustworthy is as irrational as saying that if someone is being attacked by a swarm of bees.

while at the same time taking great pride in their own loyalty and humble subservience to their god (as "law-abiding taxpayers")." while feeling deep pride. Constitution. ("You can work to try to change the law. honored and obeyed. "criminals"). and for permission to do certain things. And while the mortals may humbly beg their lord for favors. and the churches they attend. on the other hand. It is a promise to be obedient and easily controlled." the entire "Pledge" is about subservience to the "government" which claims to represent the collective. as well as the overtly religious reverence given to two pieces of parch-ment. In short. the Declaration of Independence and the U. Whenever there is a conflict between "government" and the teachings of the lesser gods—such as "pay your fair share" (taxation) versus "Thou shalt not steal. also demonstrate that people do not merely view "government" as a practical necessity." or "duty The religious nature of the belief in "authority" is put on display for all to see whenever people solemnly stand. and religiously proclaim their undying faith in. the god that people actually pray to. Aside from the patently inaccurate phrase at the end about "liberty and justice for all. The "Pledge. that what they are actually doing is swearing allegiance to a system of subjugation and authoritarian control. is "government." and the mentality and emotions it is supposed to stir up." It is "government" whose commandments the people most often respect and obey. it is consider blasphemous and outrageous for one of the lowly peasants to imagine himself to be fit to decide which of the "government" god's "laws" he should follow and which it is okay for him to ignore. Many other patriotic rituals and songs. but as long as it's the law. are now little more than empty rituals and half-heartedly parroted superstitions. with their hands upon their hearts.S. and loyalty to. to be praised and worshiped. It rarely occurs to those who recite the "Pledge of Allegiance. a flag and a "government" (the "republic"). to subordinate oneself to "the republic.. and to shower them with blessings. they view it as a god. as if that in itself is some great and noble goal. to smite their enemies. would apply equally well in any tyrannical regime in history as it does in the United States. and sinners (i. we all have to follow it!") 29 .The main factor distinguishing the belief in "government" from other religions today is that people actually believe in the god called "government. they are promising to do as they are told.e. When it comes to their everyday lives." The other gods people claim to believe in. and behave as loyal subjects to their masters. to save them from misfortune." rather than a promise to do the right thing.

And there is almost nothing which state-worshipers find more existentially terrifying than contemplating the possibility that "government"—their savior and protector. The grandiose. (Many political rituals have overtly religious overtones to them.g. what almost every statist wants is for a powerful entity ("government") to enforce 30 . there is no such thing." This gives an indication of which religion people are more deeply emotionally attached to. apocalyptic predictions and emotional tantrums. “honorable”). if you suggest to the average person that maybe God does not exist. And that is what statists hope "government" will be: a wise. all-knowing and all-powerful "final decider" that will override and supersede the flawed. cathedral-like buildings. In fact. The reason so many people respond to the idea of a stateless society ("anarchy") with insults. For example.” who deliver the sacred “law” from on high—even openly declare that it is permissible for the people to practice whatever religion they country" (military service) versus "Thou shalt not murder"—the commands of "government" supersede all of the teachings of the lesser religions. and never did. unbiased." Perhaps most telling. teacher and master—does not actually exist. the traditional costumes and age-old rituals. all give such proceedings an air of holiness and reverence.. rational consideration of evidence and logic. a religious faith. the pomp and circumstance at inaugurations and other “government” ceremonies. shortsighted and selfish whims of man. in every way. all-powerful deity to protect the innocent. and so on. far more indicative of religious rites than of a practical means of collective organization. It is. and there are many reasons why it is utterly foolish to look to "government" as the solution to human imperfection. and can be no such thing.) It might be nice if it were possible to have some morally superior. they believe so deeply in "government" that they do not even recognize it as being a "belief" at all. and unerringly dispense justice and fairness. and which religion they actually believe in more firmly. he will likely respond with less emotion and hostility than if you bring up the idea of life without "government. Politicians. rather than with calm reasoning. the way the members of the ruling class are treated and described (e. prevent theft and murder. the high priests of the church of "government"—the mouthpieces and representatives of “government. is because their belief in "government" is not the result of careful. as long as they do not run afoul of the supreme religion by disobeying "the law"—meaning the dictates of the god called "government. However. believed only because of prolonged indoctrination.

over and over again. 31 . those people will happen to decide to use their newfound power only for good. In other words. as protection against what some of those people might do. Once the people create a master. the statists advocate giving some of those same people of questionable virtue a huge amount of power. and societal permission to rule over everyone else. But then. and they are afraid of what some of those people might do. he does not care what his slaves were hoping he would do with the power they gave to him. Socialists assert that "government" is needed to "fairly" redistribute wealth." Bizarrely. is absurd. "I do not trust you to be my neighbor. objective rules of civilized behavior. the people. almost every statist admits that politicians are more dishonest." what the masses had intended for them to do with their power does not matter. corrupt. the statist looks at his fellow man and thinks. This fact has been demonstrated by every "government" in history. in the vain hope that. And in every case the people end up disappointed. because the "authority" always changes the plan in order to serve the interests of the people in power. with very different beliefs and agendas. Statists look out at a world full of strangers who have questionable motives and dubious morality. Once a set of rulers are "in charge.To expect otherwise. by definition. That." it is no longer up to that individual to decide what counts as moral or just—the "authority" will claim the right to do that for him. To expect the master to serve the slave—to expect power to be used solely for the benefit of the one being controlled (not the one in control)—is ridiculous." while failing to realize that the moment there is an "authority. believers in democracy assert that "government" is needed to carry out the will of the majority. and so on. is a perfectly reasonable concern. Constitutionalists assert that a "government" is needed to carry out only those tasks listed in the Constitution. many Christians assert that "government" is needed to enforce God's laws. by some miracle. only to quickly learn that once the master is on the throne. conniving And this has happened to all kinds of statists. are no longer in charge. believers in "authority" have tried to create an all-powerful force for good by anointing some people as rulers. What makes it even more insane is that statists claim that appointing rulers is the only way to overcome the imperfections and untrustworthiness of man. but I do trust you to be my master. More specifically. each individual wants his own perception of justice and morality to be enforced by an "authority. in and of itself. And so. even without all of the historical examples. Objectivists assert that "government" is needed to protect individual rights.

and murder. if given such tremendous power. (Author's personal note: I say all of this as a former devout statist. Believers in "government" truly believe that the only thing that can keep them safe from the flaws of human nature is taking some of those flawed humans—some of the most flawed around. but let go of the superstition slowly and reluctantly. Since the edicts of "government" are written by mere human beings (usually exceptionally power-hungry. I am attacking my own prior beliefs as much as anyone else's. with the right to dominate all of mankind. Statists obviously hope that the "authority" will issue and enforce the right rules. it simply creates an opportunity to drastically escalate personal disagreements from small disputes into large-scale wars. this demonstrates that believers in "government" 32 . but they never explain how or why this would happen. why would there be any reason to expect their "rules" to be better than the "rules" each individual would choose for himself? The belief in "government" does not make everyone agree. corrupt human beings). And the fact that that has never happened in the history of the world does not stop statists from insisting that it "needs" to happen to ensure peaceful civilization. in fact—and appointing them as gods. different viewpoints. in situations where individuals would not. I mention this only so that it may be understood that when I refer to the belief in "authority" as utterly irrational and insane. and rational. in the absurd hope that. Yet statists talk as if "government" will be fair. I did not escape my own authoritarian indoctrination quickly or comfortably. there should be a central "authority" which will make one set of rules that will be enforced on everyone. reasonable. Statists often express concerns such as. who for most of my life not only accepted the self-contradictory and delusional rationalizations underlying the myth of "government. The authoritarian "solution" is that. instead of everyone deciding for himself what is right and what he should do.and selfish than most people. if there are conflicting views—as there always have been and always will be—they can lead to conflict. Nor does having an "authority" settling a dispute do anything to guarantee that the "right" side wins.) Another way to look at it is that statists worry that different people have different beliefs. but still insists that civilization can exist only if those particularly untrustworthy people are given both the power and the right to forcibly control everyone else. such people will use it only for good. "What if there is no government and someone thinks it's okay to kill me and steal my stuff?" Yes. Again. mass oppression." but vehemently spread the mythology myself. different standards of morality. with much intellectual "kicking and screaming" along the way.

or an unforeseen side effect of an otherwise good idea. In their search for an all-powerful "good guy" to save the day. and sometimes it is not. It is a truism based upon the nature of the belief in "authority. This is not an unfortunate coincidence. regardless of who does it. History shows otherwise." and this is easy to logically prove. Though there are plenty of gray areas that people can argue about. imagine "authority" to have superhuman virtues. for example. and all it ever can do. This would include theft. they build giant. unstoppable "government" monsters in the hopes that they will defend the innocent. what statists actually advocate in their attempts to guarantee justice for all is the legitimization of evil.. or several. when it gets hold of the machine called "government. While a twisted sense of morality in one person. it is generally accepted that aggressive force—the initiation of violence against someone— is unjustified and immoral. only to find that the monsters become a far greater threat to the innocent than the threats they were originally intended to protect against. To make things simple. in the hope that doing so will serve the good.Ironically. that should be trusted above the virtues of mere mortals. can result in the murder of one person. Over and over again. and Hitler). Mao." can result in the murder of millions (e. statists openly advocate evil. is to add more immoral violence into society. “Authority” = Immoral Violence ✹ Almost everyone can agree that sometimes physical force is justified. not based upon who is using it. In a nutshell. but upon the situation it is used in. they always end up creating all-powerful bad guys. Stalin. assault and murder. using force in defense of the innocent is widely accepted as justified and moral. or even dozens. or a few. On the other hand. The legitimacy of such force is determined. The truth is that all the belief in "authority" ever does. even noble." but has no way to make that happen and no reason to expect that it will happen. Their faith in the mythical being called "government" is not merely misplaced but horribly dangerous as well. is considered by most to be inherently justified. the types of force which anyone has the right to use (even if some do 33 . as well as the more indirect forms of aggression.g. that same twisted sense of morality in just a few people. The statist wants his idea of the “good rules” forced on everyone by a central "authority. such as vandalism and fraud. Stopping a purse-snatcher.

" (The reader may apply his own standards.Obviously. In short. hinting that the thing called "government" is super-human). every person has the right to use "good force"—force which." This idea requires that the standards of moral behavior which apply to human beings do not apply to agents of "government" (again." understands this fact. but in other. neither the enthusiastic voter who proudly posts a campaign sign in his yard. they would understand that "democracy. additional situations as well." and is being committed by "authority. this logically implies that police have the right to use what would constitute bad force if anyone else did it. If everyone has the right (though maybe not the ability) to use inherently righteous force. not have the ability to do so) can be termed "good force. is inherently justifiable. can be morally right when done by agents of "authority." it changes from immoral violence into righteous force. by its very nature. based upon the situation." are imagined to have the right to use force." and any acts of force which normal people do not have the moral right to commit can be termed "bad force. whenever such immoral violence has been made "legal. "authority" is permission to commit evil—to do things which would be recognized as immoral and unjustified if anyone else did them. as a result of their "authority. The fundamental premise upon which all "government" rests is the idea that what would be morally wrong for the average person to do. Because inherently righteous force (which most people generally agree is limited to defensive force) does not require any "law" or special "authority" to make it valid. cannot possibly fix society." which is nothing more than majority-approved immoral violence. the truth is that all "democracy" does is legitimize aggression and unjustified violence." and that the right to vote is what makes people free. And that is exactly what By definition." and "law enforcers" have the right to use force in situations where the average person does not. not just in situations where anyone would. then. If they did.) 34 . acting on his own. nor the well-intentioned citizen who "runs for office. But if the average person. or be a tool for freedom or justice. the only thing that "law" and "government" are needed for is to attempt to legitimize immoral force. The logic of this is so simple and obvious that an enormous amount of propaganda is needed in order to train people to not see it. has the right to use "good force. and the logic here will still apply. Despite the mythology which claims that a person's vote is his "voice. all "government" adds to society is more immoral violence. however. Certain people. and "government" agents are allowed to use "force" in other situations as well. The problem is that the people are taught that.

The notion that man-made "law" can negate the usual rules of civilized behavior has some fairly terrifying ramifications. "government" adds. or forcibly enslaving millions. why couldn't "legalized" torture and murder be legitimate and just? If some "collective need" requires society to have an institution that has an exemption from morality. is deemed necessary for the "common good. History shows this all too clearly. (Of course." by what moral standards could anyone complain. because to them. why would 100% "taxation" not be valid? If "legal" theft is legitimate and just. or how malicious or virtuous they might be. Such sentiments are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what "authority" is. In fact. often opine that human beings are not "ready" for that. Even many who agree that there would be no rulers in an ideal society. the only force that "authority" is needed to (supposedly) legitimize is aggressive force—force that is not viewed as civilized or justified when committed by the average person. not moral enough. to say that human beings are not "ready" for a stateless society. and the only thing it adds. If "government" is not limited by basic human morality (which the very concept of "authority" implies). it is not mere mortals committing the Almost everyone accepts the myth that human beings are not trustworthy enough. or cannot be "trusted" to exist without having an "authority" that they bow to. to society: more inherently unjust violence. and what it adds to society.Regardless of how foolish or wise human beings are. to exist in peace without a "government" to keep them in line. or outlawing a religion. aggressive nature of human beings. No one who understands this simple truth would ever claim that "government" is essential to human civilization. there is no objective moral standard to limit "government" behavior. statists do not recognize it as immoral. why would there be any limits on what it can do? If exterminating an entire race. once they have accepted the premise of "authority"? All belief in "government" rests on the idea that the "common good" justifies the "legal" initiation of violence against innocents to one degree or another. powerful machine which adds an enormous amount of immoral violence into society. when in reality is does the exact opposite: the belief in "authority" legitimizes and "legalizes" aggression. And once that premise has been accepted. or not wise enough. is to say that peaceful civilization can only exist if there is a huge. 35 . by what standards or principles would "government" action be limited at all? If 30% "taxation" is valid. The idea of "government" as a "necessary evil" (as Patrick Henry described it) implies that the existence of "government" imposes restraints upon the violent.

" There are several independent ways to demonstrate that the mythology which the public is taught about "government" and "authority" is self-contradictory and completely irrational. despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations. who would have the right to rule over others.. all modern belief in "government" rests on the notion that mere mortals can. through certain political procedures." Who Gave Them the Right? ✹ There is an enormous number of things which the average person believes that At least the old myths attributed to some mysterious "higher power" the task of appointing certain individuals as rulers over others—something a deity could at least theoretically do. humanity has. And that self-evident truth. this nearly universally-held belief—that it is necessary to add immoral violence into society in order to prevent people from committing immoral violence—is exposed as the patently absurd myth that it is. There is no ritual or document through which any group of people can delegate to someone else a right which no one in the group possesses. for the most part. The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. claim to accomplish the same amazing feat. How would anyone acquire the right to rule another? The old superstitions asserted that certain people were specifically ordained by a god (or a group of gods) to rule over others. they accept it as an article of faith.) which determined who would be the rightful king—i. They do not believe it as a result of rational thought and logic. In short. they have replaced the old superstitions with new superstitions that are even less rational. 36 . demolishes any possibility of legitimate "government." however. all by itself." and deities have the right to do things which mortals do not. but representatives of the deity known as "government.) When simply described in literally accurate terms. bestow upon some people various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with. because it is part of the unquestionable doctrine of the church of "government.violence. One of the simplest ways to demonstrate this is to ask the question. But everyone who believes in the myth of "government" has to believe exactly that. Thankfully.e. Various legends tell of supernatural events (the Lady of the Lake. outgrown those silly superstitions. Unfortunately. but without supernatural assistance. etc. the Sword in the Stone. The new justifications for "authority.

To put it in the most simple terms. in terms of rights and powers. all by itself. No election can make an evil act into a good act.” 37 . you can't give someone something that you don't have. If it is on the same level as everyone else. And if “government” ruled only those individuals who had each willingly delegated their right to rule themselves. No political ritual can alter morality. And that simple truth. So how could voters possibly have given such a right to politicians? All modern statism is based entirely on the assumption that people can delegate rights they don't have. and so on. rules out all "government. individually and jointly. How. amount to nothing more than the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis. all of their political rituals. and therefore cannot delegate to someone else.S. And the number of people involved does not affect the logic. it would not be “government. To claim that a majority can bestow upon someone a right which none of the individuals in that majority possess (e. at least in theory. And if the same morality that applies to Because each person has the right to “rule” himself (as schiozphrenic as that idea might be). could possibly have given them such super-human rights. But a right he does not possess. and from whom. did those in "government" acquire such rights? How. then there is no reason to call it "government" anymore. Even the U. then "government" loses the one ingredient that makes it "govern-ment": the right to rule over others (i. but which the average individual does not have the right to do on his own. The obvious question then is. authorize someone else to rule himself. is the right to rule someone else. Nothing they do can have any legitimacy—any more than if you did the same things on your own—unless they somehow acquired rights that you do not have. Constitution pretended to grant to "Congress" the right to "tax" and "regulate" certain things. he can. all of their demands and commands." because if those in "government" have only those rights possessed by those who elected them. and no group of people on earth. have no more rights than you have. "law” books. courts.g.e. "authority").. then it is bad for those in "government" to do it.. the right to "tax") is just as irrational as claiming that three people— none of whom have a car (or money to buy a car)—can give a car to someone else. If the politicians. for example—whether you call it "theft" or "taxation"—would those in "government" acquire the right to forcibly take property from those who have earned it? No voter has such a right. even though the authors of the Constitution had no such right themselves. and therefore could not possibly have given such a right to anyone else. since no one on earth. And that is impossible. If it is bad for you to do something."government" has the right to do.

two plus two shall equal five. they are 38 . and trying to best determine what is right and what is wrong— something which every individual should. Altering Morality ✹ The concept of "authority" depends upon the concepts of right and wrong (i. No. To wit. most of their victims believe them. does not particularly matter for purposes of this discussion. do for himself. morality). "By the power vested in me by my superior intellect. those wearing the label of "government" are nothing but a gang of thugs. you will have four apples. and no more—then "government" ceases to be government. Those who study mathematics endeavor to understand more about reality. something possessed by countless thugs. I hereby decree that henceforth. any validity." They are nothing but a band of crooks who insist that various documents and rituals have given them the right to be crooks. it means having the right to control other people. having "authority" does not merely mean having the ability to forcibly control other people. Anyone who entered the field of math with the stated goal of altering the laws of mathematics would be seen as insane. and rightfully so. unchanging part of reality. A simple analogy will prove that seemingly odd statement. and their actions lack any legitimacy. for there to be such thing as " also applies to those in "government"—if those in "public offices" have the same rights that you do. Use your own definitions. Thus. Imagine how idiotic it would be for some math professor to proclaim. If you add two apples to two apples. to learn about what already is.e. The laws of mathematics are an objective..) While the concept of "authority" requires the existence of right and wrong. terrorists. thieves and gangs (who are not referred to as "authority"). thieves and murderers. not just to avoid punishment." They are not merely observing the world. and must. (How one defines right and wrong. but because such obedience (being "lawabiding") is morally good and disobedience ("breaking the law") is morally bad. If judged by the same standards as other mortals are judged (including you). Sadly. and the logic will still apply." there must be such a thing as right and wrong. it is also ruled out entirely by the existence of right and wrong. any "authority. or what one believes to be the source of morality. which implies that those being controlled have a moral obligation to obey." Yet such lunacy is exactly what occurs every time politicians enact "legislation.

" but no one would call such opinions "laws. or evil into good. Mortals cannot alter morality. And the latter is what those in "government" pretend to do every day. every "legislator" suffers from a profoundly delusional god-complex. "I think doing this thing is bad. Anyone who fully understands that one simple truth cannot continue to believe in "government. In other words. Their understanding of something may change. by mere declaration." Instead." because if the politicians lack such a supernatural power. via political rituals. but because their commands dictate and determine what is moral and what is not. he actually has the power (along with his fellow "legislators") to change right and wrong. and doing that thing is good. claiming to be altering morality. the latter is insane. In their "legislation." In short. Whether the issue is math or morality (or anything else). all by itself makes the myth of "government" disintegrate. and trying to dictate what is true. by decree. just like the insane math professor who thinks he can.Understanding and accepting the simple fact that mere mortals cannot make good into evil. their commands carry no inherent legitimacy." 39 . but they cannot. as if it is up to them to make up (via "legislation") what is right and wrong. any more than they can alter the laws of mathematics. and they cease to be "authority. as if an act can become bad simply because they declared it to "illegal. by issuing some new demand or command." Unless good is whatever the politicians say it is—unless right and wrong actually come from the whims of the politician-gods—then no one can have any moral obligation to respect or obey the commands of the politicians. and their "laws" become utterly invalid and irrelevant. and making this thing good. make two plus two equal five. Anyone has the right to say. "We are making this thing bad. change the nature of the universe. Nor would anyone sane attempt to. And as idiotic as that notion is. there is a huge difference between trying to determine what is true. by mere decree." the politicians do not merely express how they think people should behave. the politicians speak and act as if they are the actual source of morality. it is a necessary element to the belief in "government": the idea that the masses are morally obligated to obey the "lawmakers"—that disobeying ("breaking the law") is morally wrong—not because the politicians' commands happen to match the objective rules of morality. The former is useful. based upon universal standards of morality. the message from the politicians is. which leads him to believe that. Yet that is what every new "law" passed by politicians pretends to be: a change in what constitutes moral behavior.

the professor declared that he was going to make two plus two equal four. that is because the acts themselves are intrinsically evil. If a "law" tells him to do otherwise. they never have "authority. While people should not commit such evil acts. is never the reason that something is good or bad. and should be disobeyed. and make one into an immoral act. Whether or not some politicians enacted "legislation" declaring murder to be wrong—whether or not they “outlawed” it—has no effect whatsoever on the morality of the act. any sane individual would view that decree as incorrect (if not delusional). then. if one accepts the legitimacy of "laws" (politician commands). The professor's declaration is obviously not the reason it equals four. such a declaration would still be silly and pointless. if there is such a thing as right and wrong at all (however you wish to define those terms). And if a "law" happens to coincide with what is right." 40 . he was going to make two plus two equal five. and so should have no bearing on what any individual judges to be moral or immoral.Consider the example of alcohol consumption. one must also accept that drinking alcohol was perfectly moral one day. even though two plus two does equal four." no matter what it says. the professor's declaration would and should have no effect on people's ability to add two and two. logically implies that politicians actually have the ability to alter morality—to take two essentially identical behaviors. Every person is (by definition) morally obligated to do what is right. Moreover. on the other hand. not because of what any man-made "law" happens to say about it. Returning to the math professor analogy. etc. they have no "authority. but good for "law enforcers" to use violence against someone smoking pot (because it is "illegal"). for example. by his mere decree. but was immoral the next day—the day "prohibition" was enacted. As a result. they never create an obligation for anyone to behave a certain way. murder. even "laws" which prohibit evil acts (assault. The reason. If. And so it is with the "laws" of politicians: whether or not they actually coincide with objective right and wrong.) are illegitimate." because they are never the source of right and wrong. the "law" is simply irrelevant. that "law" is inherently illegitimate. by definition. "Legislation. if a mathematics professor authoritatively declared that. Either way. so immoral that it justifies violent retribution. then the "laws" of "government" are always illegitimate and worthless. To believe that it is bad to use violence against someone for having a beer (which is "legal"). And if there is no obligation to obey the "laws" of the politicians. In short. to refrain from committing murder is because murder is inherently wrong.

Only politicians claim such a power. The belief in "authority"—the idea that the individual ever has an obligation to ignore his own judgment and decision-making process in favor of obeying someone else—is not just a bad idea. In other words. I judge that it is better for my actions to be dictated by the judgment of people in power. it was immoral one day. Regardless of whether the individual's judgment is flawed or not. to regularly change what is right and wrong. and moral the next—the day prohibition was repealed. there are only two options: either the person ought to follow his own conscience regardless of what the so-called "law" says. I judge that. morality and obedience are often direct opposites. Even the gods of most religions do not claim the power to constantly amend and revise their commandments. in favor of blind obedience. In other words. which reduces human beings to irresponsible robots. In other words. it is schizophrenic insanity for a personal to believe that it is good for him to do what he believes is bad. I should subjugate myself to the will of those in government." even though that means doing what he personally thinks is wrong. ✹ The Unavoidability of Judging "I believe it's good to obey the law. In other words. instead of by my own personal judgment. it is self-contradictory and insane. rather than making my own decisions about what I should do. Unthinking adherence to any "authority" constitutes the greatest betrayal to humanity that there could possibly be. and wrong for me to follow my own judgment. 41 . and that the good people are those who "play by the rules. In other words.Then. The profound insanity involved can be summed up as follows: In any case in which there is a conflict between a person's own conscience and what "the law" commands. or he is obligated to obey "the law. I judge that I should not judge. not many years later." But in reality. In other words. Every act of "legislation" involves such lunacy: the notion that one day an act could be perfectly permissible. I judge that it is right for me to follow the judgment of others. as it seeks to discard the free will and individual judgment that make us human and make us capable of morality." meaning they comply with the commands issued by "government." Nearly everyone is taught that respect for "the law" is paramount to civilization. and the very next day—the day it was "outlawed"—it would be immoral. I am insane. I judge that I should do as the legislators command.

and other societal norms. if any. the belief in "authority" serves as a mental crutch for people seeking to escape the responsibility involved with being a thinking human being." "If you choose not to decide." neatly dodges the fact that the person first had to decide that he would obey "authority. to do whatever he thinks is right. is often a perfectly rational and useful thing to do. standards of behavior. a person may think he has every right to play music in his own backyard. the "law" is irrelevant. the individual still must choose which one. Either way." as countless conflicting "authorities" have claimed. you still have made a choice. Not choosing anything is not possible. recognizing "authority" as a myth is not at all the same as "not caring what anyone else thinks. What is not rational is for someone to feel morally obliged to do something he does not personally judge to be the right thing to do. the "law" conflicts with his individual judgment. in their song "Free Will. and behaves when he visits some other culture. if a "law" coincides with the individual's judgment. an obligation to obey an "authority" is not the same as people voluntarily altering their behavior for the sake of peaceful coexistence.) To be blunt. at all times and in all places.) The fact that most people give very little thought to such things does not change the fact that they had the option of not obeying. Even what appears as blind obedience is still the result of the individual choosing to be obedient. Or a person may change how he dresses. by trying to pass off the responsibility for decision-making to someone else: those claiming to be "authority. the "law" has no "authority. (Or. or some particular setting where his usual behavior might offend others. as the band Rush put it." Again. then the "law" must be viewed as illegitimate." But the attempt to avoid responsibility by "just following orders" is silly. Contrary to what some might suggest. "I was only obeying an authority. but may nonetheless choose not to at his neighbor's request. talks. "You must obey me. It is an attempt to evade the task of having to determine right from wrong. If. and are therefore completely responsible for their 42 . for the sake of getting along and avoiding conflicts." If one understands the fact that every individual is obligated. to believe. on the other hand.") Yet that is the basis of the belief in "authority.(As a point of clarification. and to act accordingly. given the circumstances." (Even if some "authority" proclaims. then he cannot have any moral obligation to obey any outside "authority." Going along with various customs." The excuse of. There are countless factors which can impact someone's opinion about what he should or should not do. For example. because it requires the person to choose to do what he was told.

such as "authority. In addition to being the supreme act of cowardice. at all times. and thus bears no responsibility for the outcome—is utterly insane." is cowardly and dishonest. The claim that there was something outside of you making your choices for you—the claim that you had no choice. countless competing. Even if you judge that you should not judge. All too often. Or." Of course. makes his own choices. whether about morality or anything else. and you who are responsible. Loyal obedience to "authority. it is impossible not to judge. For a person to pretend that something else made his choices for him—that he played no part in the decision. because anyone capable of making a choice—which means everyone—is responsible for whatever he chooses to do. contradictory "authorities" will always exist. Everyone. it is also a fruitless endeavor. and your own choices. and each will always declare 43 ." it was because you decided to do so. and reduce one's self to an unthinking. all I have to do is ask my infallible authority. which you may tell even to yourself. that you had to obey "authority"—is a lie. It was you that made the choice. even if it is only to blindly obey a master. to express it in a more personal way: (There is no short-cut to determining truth. it is impossible not to make choices. the basis of people's belief system boils down to this: "To know what is true. Even those who hallucinate an "authority" are still choosing to believe. To say that you were just following orders is the sure sign of a coward. he is still responsible for choosing to obey. programmable machine. Even if you just stupidly obeyed some self-proclaimed "authority. amoral. it is still impossible not to judge. To try to attribute your behavior to some outside force. "Authority" is merely a delusion. In short. is still stuck having to choose which "authority" to believe. because my authority tells me it is always right. One who clings to a faith in some "authority. and are still personally responsible for having done so.actions—precisely the responsibility they wanted "authority" to relieve them of. and is personally responsible for those choices. whereby people imagine that it is possible to avoid responsibility by merely doing what they were told." while painted by many as some great virtue. is really nothing more than a pathetic attempt to escape humanity. and choosing to obey. Even if someone hallucinates an "authority" that he is obligated to obey. Your actions are always determined entirely by your own judgment." hoping it will get him out of having to figure things out for himself. and I know my authority is always right. in a subconscious attempt to evade having to decide things for himself.

or otherwise) based on "faith. not merely a good idea for people to think for themselves. therefore. however limited or misguided his judgment might be. religious. It is. Even those who consider it to be a great virtue to have a belief system (political. it is completely unavoidable.itself to be the source of truth. he always uses his own judgment." fail to realize that only an individual can decide what to have faith in. and judge for themselves what is true and what is not. Whether he wants to admit it or not.) **************************************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************************** ********************************************************************************* ************************************************************************ **************************************************************** ******************************************************** ************************************************* ****************************************** ************************************ ****************************** ************************* ******************** **************** ************ ********* ****** **** ** * T h e E f fe c t s o f t h e S u p e r s t i t i o n * ** **** ****** ********* ************ **************** ******************** ************************* ****************************** ************************************ ****************************************** ************************************************* ******************************************************** Part III 44 . to decide what to believe.

" Each person thinks that the world is really the way he sees it. because the belief in "authority" has warped and perverted their perception of reality. some cultures offered up human sacrifices. some human beings have acquired the moral right to initiate violence and commit acts of aggression against others (by way of so-called "laws"). he cannot see it happening.✹ Effects of the Myth Throughout the ages. Having been convinced that "authority" is real. every Republican. that factually incorrect notion had little or no impact on how people lived their daily lives. For example. the belief in the legitimacy of a ruling class ("government") leads nearly everyone to either condone or commit acts of evil without even realizing it. It could be a simple misunderstanding among doctors. emotional and physical—which has occurred throughout the world. every voter. over the years many other false assumptions and myths have posed real dangers to humanity. and that by way of it. and throughout recorded history. The same is true of mental "lenses. Someone wearing red contact lenses cannot see the lenses themselves. 45 . they are not going to become purveyors of evil as a result of their accepting such myths. Of course. many of them relatively harmless. as the result of the belief in "authority. In short. Everyone can point to others and claim that they are out of touch with reality. On the other hand. they do not see it that way. or believe that storks deliver babies. Or. it will appear to him that the world really is mostly red." The myth of "authority" dramatically alters how different people perceive the world. when most people believed the earth to be flat. in the hopes that doing so would win the favor of their imaginary gods. is a proponent of violence and injustice. but But even that pales in comparison to the destruction—mental. thereby altering the thoughts and actions of those people as well. Likewise. and everyone else who advocates "government" in any form. as a more drastic example. Instead. (Obviously that superstition was quite detrimental to the health of the ones who were sacrificed. if children believe in the tooth fairy. when something is altering someone's perception of reality.) The trouble is. every Democrat. or how they treated one another. which led them to try "cures" that posed a bigger threat to their patients than the maladies they were trying to treat. human beings have clung to all sorts of superstitions and false assumptions.

In fact.When everyone has the same misperception of reality—when everyone believes something untrue. The problem. When a false or illogical idea is constantly repeated and reinforced by nearly everyone. with almost none of those people willing. And when such a hallucination is shared by many. or even able. The end result is billions of people pointing fingers at each other. From the perspective of the one having hallucinations. It should be self-evident that if thousands of basically good people were all seeing the world as it is. Everything a person has been exposed to. insane and horribly destructive. the culture he grew up in. violently attacking his friend is perfectly reasonable and justified. The problem is that his perception of reality is completely warped. most people become literally incapable of questioning it. the results become far worse. telling each other how delusional and misguided they are. in the case of one whose perception of reality has been so distorted. the decisions and actions which seem perfectly appropriate to him are. and as a result. all create a long-lasting set of mental "lenses" which affect how a person sees the world. Nearly everyone on both sides of every war imagines himself to be in the right. There are countless real-world examples of how a difference in perspectives has led to horrendous consequences. A suicide bomber who intentionally kills dozens of civilian strangers imagines that he is doing the right thing. No one imagines himself to be the "bad guy. and who. or that he is malicious. it rarely occurs to anyone to even begin to question it. has an impact on how he views the world. or that he is stupid. someone who has ingested a strong hallucinogen. to honestly examine their own "lenses. but simply an inability to see things as they are. the religion he was raised in. as an analogy. even something patently absurd—it doesn't feel untrue or absurd to everyone. what he learned in school. because over time it becomes solidified in their minds as a "given"—an assumption that doesn't need a rational Consider. the problem is not actual evil or malice. as a result. becomes convinced that his best friend is really a malicious alien monster in disguise." Military conflicts are entirely the result of differences in perspective. in reality. they would not be desperately trying to kill each other. how he has seen people behaving. is not that he is immoral. resulting from mental "lenses" which have been trained into the soldiers on both sides. In most cases. What his parents taught him. almost no one thinks that his own perception is skewed (even when others tell him so)." and the things that may be distorting their own perceptions. 46 . especially when young.

To them. even existentially terrifying. And so it is with the belief in "authority" and "government. In reality. people would have confidently proclaimed that it was a proven fact that the earth was flat. each person simply assumes it to be true. and doesn't need to be analyzed or reconsidered. because he cannot imagine that everyone else—including all of the respectable. the belief in "authority" and "government" warps the perception of almost every person. floating around in space. as a result of believing that lie. self-evident fact. and humanity in general. and they would have said it with just as much certainty and honesty as we now proclaim it to be spherical. or hypocritical. because they have never had a reason to. It is exceedingly uncomfortable and disturbing." but they have a very compelling psychological incentive to not examine it. has been harmful to himself. and leads him to say and do things which are often irrational. or counter-productive. because "everyone knows" it to be true. a concept as rational and self-evident as gravity. or pointless. In short. It does not feel like something to believe in. And their utterly false assumption about the world being flat would have seemed to them to be a scientific. What business does one average individual have doubting something which everyone else seems perfectly comfortable accepting as indisputable truth? 47 . was patently ridiculous. skews his judgment. One whose perception and judgment have been distorted by the superstition of "authority" (and that describes nearly everyone) will not find it easy or pleasant to contemplate the possibility that his entire belief system is based upon a lie.Such a deeply entrenched belief actually becomes invisible to those who believe it. well-known. and attached to nothing. Few people have ever objectively examined the concept. and talks as if it is. for someone to call into question one of the bedrock assumptions upon which his entire view of reality. has been based for all of his life. educated people on the radio and TV—could all believe something false. however. and his entire moral code." It feels to people like "government" is an obvious reality. and that much of what he has done throughout his life. When a mind has always thought of something in one way. or even horribly basis. and unavoidable. that mind will imagine evidence and hallucinate experience supporting the idea. and necessary. his friends and family. and legitimate. "Everyone knows" that "government" is real. Everyone assumes that it is. it simply feels like what is. so why would anyone question it? Not only are people rarely given a reason to examine the concept of "government. the idea of the world being a giant spherical thing. A thousand years ago.

leads to a degree of oppression. T he Effect s o f th e Myt h on the Masters * ** **** ****** ********* ************ **************** ******************** ************************* ****************************** ************************************ ****************************************** ************************************************* ******************************************************** Part III(a) **************************************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************************** ********************************************************************************* ************************************************************************ **************************************************************** ******************************************************** ************************************************* ****************************************** ************************************ ****************************** ************************* ******************** **************** ************ ********* ****** **** ** * 48 . Of course. the believers in the myth do not see it that way. when taken together. The effect of the belief in "authority" on these various groups. because they do not see it as a belief at all. justifiable and proper). opinions. When a superstition is capable of making otherwise decent people view good as evil. justifiable and proper (just as the Aztecs no doubt believed their human sacrifices to be reasonable. or the mere spectator looking on as a neutral observer. They are firmly convinced that "authority" is real. theft and murder which simply could not and would not otherwise exist. and actions are perfectly reasonable. based on that false assumption. and. and evil as good—which is exactly what the belief in "authority" does—that is what poses the real threat to humanity. thoughts. the subject who imagines himself to have a moral duty to obey. the "law enforcer" who imagines himself to have the right and obligation to enforce the "lawmaker's" commands. injustice. conclude that their resulting perceptions.The superstition of "authority" affects the perception and actions of different people in different ways. whether it be the "lawmaker" who imagines himself to have the right to rule. destructive and heinously evil.

he believes that he has the right to demand a portion of everyone's income. at the top of the gang called "government" are the Congressmen. And.000. They are still imagined to be acting on behalf of something other than themselves—some abstract entity called "government. such as "kings. on the other hand.✹ The Divine Right of Politicians In this country. If. 49 . that will have a significant effect upon his behavior. he will almost certainly do so. though they are at the top of the authoritarian organization. In most people's eyes." they are imagined to have rights to do things in the name of "government" that none of them have the right to do as individuals." and the commands they issue by way of the accepted political rituals (known as "laws")." (In other countries the rulers are known by other names. they are not perceived to be "authority" itself (unlike a king used to be). are judged by a very different standard than what they are allowed to do as private individuals But the belief in "authority" does not only change how "lawmakers" are viewed by the masses.") And. but any who resisted his extortionist demands ("tax cheats") would be viewed as the criminals. If a congressman breaks into his neighbor's home and takes $1. for example. If he is convinced that he has the right to coercively control the decisions of his neighbors—that it is moral and legitimate for him to do so—he almost certainly will. he imposes a "tax. the actions that politicians take in their "official capacity." Not only would the senator then not be viewed as a crook. It should be obvious that if a person becomes convinced that he has the moral right to rule over others. it changes how "lawmakers" view themselves. If. The legitimacy of their actions is not measured by what they do. What would have been armed robbery would then be viewed by almost everyone as legitimate "taxation. at least at first. under threat of punishment (provided he does it through accepted "legal" procedures). he may even do so from the best of intentions.000 from the same neighbor." or "members of parliament. but by how they do it. it is seen as legitimate. he is seen as a criminal. together with his fellow politicians." As a result of the belief in "authority." demanding the same $1. Presidents and "judges." "emperors.

he will not view others. because once someone truly believes that he has the right to rule (even if only in a "limited" manner).A simple mental exercise gives a glimpse into how and why politicians act the way they do. and treat them. to one degree or another. One could make things more fair. to impose his will upon others. the potential for tyranny and oppression—in fact. acquiring a position of "authority" is. would do. and once he has been given the reins of power. the inevitability of tyranny and oppression—is just as easy to imagine. Think about what you. what he will actually end up doing is using violence. One could make a healthier country. 50 . whatever noble intentions he had in mind to begin with. and make society more kind. Many of those who seek "high office" do it for purely selfish reasons from the start. or treat others. (Even seemingly benevolent causes like "giving to the poor" first require "government" to forcibly take wealth from someone else. as equals.) Once someone—however virtuous and well-intentioned he may be—has accepted the premise that "legal" aggression is legitimate. a means of achieving an enormous However. and so on. If one starts with the assumption that such control can be legitimate and righteous." almost no one answers. how would you improve things? Consider the question carefully. and with them the supposed right to rule. for such people. When asked what they would do if they were "in charge. most people start imagining the ways in which they could use the ability to control people as a tool for good. there is little likelihood that he will choose not to use such a power at all. the possibilities are nearly endless. if you were made king of the world. Of course. and delight in dominating other people. but he will become a tyrant. as subjects. the chances of that person choosing not to forcibly control his neighbors is almost none. before reading on. while many positive benefits for society can be imagined. And that is if the person started with good intentions. by forcing them to exercise regularly. if only "government" power were used for good. and the threat of violence." Instead. And. for the betterment of mankind. Once someone imagines himself to have the right to control others. One could make people safer by forcing them to pay for a strong system of defense. by forcing people to behave the way they should. by forcing people to eat more nutritious foods. because they desire wealth and power for themselves. "I would just leave people alone. One could help the poor by forcing the rich to give them money. the reader. He will view them. If you were in charge. The level of coercion and violence he inflicts upon others may vary.

it is very unlikely that any politician would.g." They seem to feel no shame or guilt regarding the fact that their "legislation" has resulted in millions of nonviolent people being forcibly taken from their friends and families. feel justified hiring armed thugs to invade his neighbor's home. though "lawmakers" are at the very top of the authoritarian hierarchy.Indeed. even they do not accept personal responsibility for what "government" does. the politicians' level of psychological detachment from what they have personally and directly caused via their "laws" borders on insanity. When they speak of the acts of violence which they are directly responsible for (and "narcotics laws" are only one example). Hitler. and drag his neighbor away and put him in a cage. throughout the world and throughout history. Pol Pot. terrorization. "legislators" use terms such as "the law of the land. Yet many politicians have advocated exactly that. Mao. Lenin. It is so obvious that it is almost silly to even say it: giving power to bad people poses a danger to humanity. etc. Putting evil people into positions of "authority" (e. because for one to believe that he has the right to rule necessarily requires him to believe that he is exempt from basic human morality. amount of power that they would not otherwise have. Stalin. torture and outright murder of a nearly incomprehensible number of human beings. assault. And after they have been directly responsible for initiating Ironically. and made to live in cages for years on end—sometimes for the rest of their lives. on his own. intend to use their power for good—can be just as dangerous. When someone imagines himself to be a legitimate "lawmaker.. via anti-drug "legislation. They command armies of "tax collectors" to forcibly confiscate the wealth earned by hundreds of millions of people. Even they speak as if "the law" is something other than the commands they issue. of megalomaniacs using the façade of "authority" to commit heinous atrocities are so common and well-known that they hardly require mentioning at all. giving power to good people—that is. using threats of violence to control every aspect of the lives of millions of people they have never met and know nothing about. For example. at least initially. The examples. harassment." he will try to use the force of "law" to control his neighbors. 51 . But.) has resulted in the robbery. and "the land" or "the country" or "the people" were the ones who made such violence occur. They enact one intrusive "law" after another. and will feel no guilt for having done so." as if they themselves are mere spectators. people who. Mussolini. as it turns out. for the supposed sin of smoking marijuana.

" to show the public how concerned and compassionate they are." When young men and women are dying by the thousands. and all of the talking heads on television. "there are casualties in every war. even those claiming to be against the war. prolonged pain and suffering. are hardly even mentioned. all of the politicians. express shock and outrage that anyone would do something so despicable. if not millions of human beings. of course. whose financial lives are ruined. mental and physical. then speak about what happened as if they themselves were mere observers. in the eyes of "lawmakers"—due to the amazing power of the "authority" myth to completely warp and distort their perception of reality—when they do things which result in the deaths of thousands of innocents. In other words. They are an occasional statistic reported on the evening news. large-scale. and sometimes murdered by "government" thugs. which their war-mongering has inflicted upon thousands. by directly targeting the ones who gave the orders to attack. they consider it unspeakably despicable for a mere peasant to ever even threaten to do what they. who are harassed. At the same time." but when one of their victims tries to strike back at the source. This is because. do to millions of people every day. the politicians. whose property is stolen. saying things like." or. "they died for their country.violence. against nearly everyone living within hundreds or thousands of miles of them. as a direct result of the very "laws" those politicians created. the politicians speak of it as a "sacrifice for freedom. 52 . if one of the victims of the politicians' war games decides to attack the source. that is "the unfortunate cost of war. they are genuinely shocked and offended if one of their victims threatens to use violence against them." when it is nothing of the sort. the depth of their denial and complete evasion of personal responsible can be seen in the fact that. whose freedom and dignity are assaulted." as if the war just happened by itself. the thousands upon thousands of people on "the other side"—the subjects of some other "authority. in the latest war game waged by politicians. on a regular basis. And. The politicians even use scenes of soldiers in caskets—a consequence directly attributable to what those politicians did—as "photo-ops. And never do the politicians accept the smallest shred of responsibility for the wide-spread. it is "terrorism. The very people who sent the young folk off to kill or to die. attacked. they do not even seem to notice the millions of people who are imprisoned. And again." the citizens of some other "country"—who are killed in the wars waged by the politicians.

and they never take personal responsibility for having threatened and coercively extorted their neighbors. to deny any responsibility for what their orders directly caused to happen. but for those actually giving the orders. or imposes some new "legal" restriction. But.It is bad enough for those who are just obeying orders to deny personal responsibility for their actions (which is addressed below)." they cannot see that that is what they are doing. or some local township or borough council. every time a "legislature" imposes a "tax" on something. is sheer lunacy. Whether it is the federal government. and making up the orders. on every level. due to their undying faith in the myth of "authority. Yet that is what "lawmakers" always do. **************************************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************************** ********************************************************************************* ************************************************************************ **************************************************************** ******************************************************** ************************************************* ****************************************** ************************************ ****************************** ************************* ******************** **************** ************ ********* ****** **** ** * * ** **** ****** ********* ************ **************** ******************** ************************* ****************************** ************************************ ****************************************** ************************************************* ******************************************************** T he Effect s o f th e Myt h o n t h e E n fo r c e r s 53 Part III(b) . the politicians are using the threat of violence to control people.