Getting the Idea of Government and Political Authority Out of Your MindBy Makia Freeman The18th century British philosopher David Hume attested to this situation when he wrote that: Nothing is more surprising than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few. Hume was clearly one of those rare few who took the time to closely examine the origins and political authority of Government. Interestingly, he was propagating many of these ideas during the mid-1700s, a few decades beforethe time of the American and French Revolutions. Humerealized that most Government is formed and is held together by war. History teaches us this over and over again, including politicians inventions of fictitious enemies to justify a Statesexistence: Most governments are not formed by contract but rather through conquest and war. The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny;flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God tothe temporal interest of the clergy. It is probable, that the first ascendant of one man over multitudes begun during a state of war; where the superiority of courage and of genius discovers itself most visibly, where unanimity and concert are most requisite, and where the pernicious effects of disorder are most sensibly felt. The long continuance of that state, an incident common among savage tribes, enured the people to submission; and if the chieftain possessed as much equity as prudence and valour, he became, even during peace, the arbiter of all differences, and could gradually, by a mixture of force and consent, establish his authority. Hume warned that authority should never become too uncontrollable over liberty: In all governments, there is a perpetual intestine struggle, open or secret, between Authority and Liberty; and neither of them can ever absolutely prevail in the contest. A great sacrifice of liberty must necessarily be made in every government; yet even the authority, which confines liberty, can never, and perhaps ought never, in any constitution, to become quite entire and uncontrollable. Lastly, Hume explicitly stated that a States supposed political authority could not hold water when investigated closely: No maxim is more comfortable than to submit quietly to the government, which we find establishd in the country where we happen to live, without enquiring too curiously into its origin and first establishment. Few governments will bear being examind so rigorously. Is political authority merelybased on opinion? It is on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. As we shall see, this last quote rings true, and is especially interesting given that it flatly contradicts the widely held notion put forth by Humes fellow British philosopher John Locke, who proposed thattheir was some kind of social contract from which the State justly derived its powers. ProfessorMichael Huemer has done some of the best work on the subject of political authority. He has authored such books as The Problem with Political Authority:An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey. Huemer shows that it is very difficult to justify political authority, especially in the form we have now in most Western countries:a democraticGovernment which claims a monopoly on the use of force or violence. Most people begin to defend a States right to exist by claiming there is some kind ofsocial contract, a theory ofLocke. However Lockes theory has been shown to be false. No such contract exists. There is no piece of paper which enshrines it, nor is there any piece of paper you sign when you come of age. Even if a written contract did exist, it would require constant consent from newer generations to sustain it. When the social contract argument falls down, people then tend to argue that rather than explicit consent, there is some of kind of implicit consentwe give to the State. Huemer identifies4 types: However, to truly give consent, you must be in a non-coercive environment. Consent can only really be given when you are also free to not give the consent, if you so choose. Is this the case with Government? The answer, of course, is a resounding NO! You dont have any choice. With valid consent, both parties wouldhave ability to opt-out, and bothwould alsohave obligations to each other, which, if unfulfilled, would grant the other oneadequate grounds for terminating the agreement. You cant just opt-out; the Government will fine, charge and ultimately imprison you if you dont obey its decrees. The only way is move country (where you face another Government doing much the same thing), so theres no escape unless you move to the remote wilderness somewhere. Likewise, there is no effective way you can simply terminate the agreement or contract, without suffering the same negative consequences of being charged and imprisoned. You have no recourse or remedy; the relationship is one of force and coercion; thus, there is no true consent, whether explicit or implicit. The next argument given bymany people is that the State is justified because it is given consent by a majority of people in that society. This may or may not be true, given that the pro-authority bias carried by many people often lies beneath the surface as a unconscious belief (which was programmed into them at a young age). However, even if it is true, it seems to affirma problematic conclusion: that the opinions and desires of a large group of people or a majority can be forced ontoa smaller group or minority. This is a kind of majority rules, unlimited, mob-rule democracy which really is better named atyranny of the masses. This is exactly why the US was set up a Republic not a Democracy. The United States is a Constitutional Republic where individuals and minorities are recognized to hold certain inherent or unalienable rights, which can never be abrogated, regardless of what the majority wants or who holds power. Without this, it is all too easy for a prejudiced majority (which can be whipped up into emotional frenzies by cunning leaders and demagogues)to impose its will on those too powerless to defend themselves. Aristotle once said that Unlimited democracy is, just like oligarchy, a tyranny spread over a large number of people. The final argument of those believing in solidjustification for Government is usually consequentialist, i.e. it appeals to the benefits, good consequences and utility of the State. Look how many good things the Government does, they say, so its political authority is valid, because it gives us so many benefits. However, the question must be asked: are the benefits worth the price we pay, in terms of a loss of liberty and the duty to obey? History clearly shows us that most of the injustice and destruction in the world wascommitted by people obeying authority, not opposing it. Also, if Government gets political authority due to the benefits it provides, why cant other groups get it too (e.g. vigilantes or private defense companies)? Most people would be unwilling to grant vigilantes or anyone else this power Ultimately, why doesGovernment deserve some kind ofspecial moral status that allows it charge, tax, fine, imprison and kill when no other individual or organization in society is allowed to? Just because the State provides us with some benefits, why does it get the right to do these things? Its a very difficult question to answer The Stateis not the root of all evil; however, the fact remains that Government killing its own citizens (democide) was the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century. So much atrocity has been committed by out-of-control Government around the world. Many countries still have not evolved to the point where they have decided to separate Church and State; indeed, it took Europe many centuries of dark oppression under the Catholic Church to realize it may not be a good idea to entrust the clergy with political power. Interestingly, the current leader of Syria, the poor country being besieged by the US-UK-Israeli axis of the New World Order, is Bashar Al-Assad, who is committed to theprinciple of separation of Church and State. This is one more reason why the NWO wants him out. Manynations in the Middle East haveGovernments of theocracy rule by God although of course God seems to have exclusive spokesmen who are usually from rich bloodline families.Yemen, Oman, Iran, Afghanistan andSaudi Arabiaare all theocracies. Saudi Arabia, Beheaders Incorporated, is ruled by the incredibly corruptHouse of Saud (which has Zionist roots), another bunch of impostor royals just like the British royal family and the other European ones. To declare yourself royal merely meansyou proclaimyou have some kind of right to rule. What a Jedi mind-trick! These royal families are the most corrupt criminals in the entire world. Check out David Ickes work in exposing the satanic British royal family for more information on this. The craziness still continues to this day, with Thai citizens getting imprisoned for the grand crime of wait for it insulting the Kings dog.Wake up humanity! Even thoseseeking true freedom understand that past conditioning and programming can be very hard to overcome. It would be great if we could just wave a magic wand and be free of old, crusty and limiting ideas that were instilled or indoctrinated into us at an earlier age, or which we mistakenly took on, but it doesnt work like that. We have to put in the hard work to uncover and analyze them, then decide what to keep and discard. If youre reading this, hopefully you can see that the State exists in our minds, first and foremost. The only way we can achieve a free outer world is to first rid our minds of limiting inner ideas. If we could open ourselves up to the idea that maybe just maybe the human race could live in freedom and peace, could govern itself, could resolve its own disputes and adequately defend itself, we wouldnt need the State. Anarchy doesnt have to mean chaos. A state of anarchy could still possess order and peaceful cooperation. Many have proposed models where the Governments role in defense and dispute resolution can be decentralized and provided by various 3rd party companies, who are then subject to the laws of economics and the market (e.g. by caring about their reputation, by trying to provide the best service, etc.). Maybe humanity is not ready for the Stateless society. Maybe we would need to first transition to something like aminarchy(a strictly limited and decentralized Government). However, the first step in all of this is for everyone to examine their unconscious belief and pro-authority bias, and realize that Governments political authority cannot be justified. Government doesnt have to exist for humanity to thrive. ***** Want the latest commentaryand analysis on Conspiracy, Natural Health, Sovereignty, Consciousness and more? Sign up forfree blog updates! Makia Freeman is the editor ofThe Freedom Articlesand senior researcher atToolsForFreedom.com(FaceBookhere), writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance. Sources: Anarchists have always stressed that self-governance must be achieved incrementally. This is the concept of secession. As Rothbard explained, And once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states?why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society Rothbard was a neo-liberal, not an anarchist. Read Kropotkin, Goldman, Bakunin, Chomsky, etc., if you want anarchist viewpoints. Rothbard never claimed to be a neo-liberal. He did say he considered himself to be an anarchist. Not sure where you got that. I would say he was an Individualist Anarchist. Never did understand why anyone considers chomsky an anarchist either. If property is not privately held, then surely the only other alternative is some sort of central governing authority. And while the anarcho-syndicalist claims to support free association, for a society to be run in the manner which they seek (which involves collective ownership of the means of production) it seems obvious that a coercive, central authority would be necessary. This philosophy seems to essentially be communism under another name. Rothbard never claimed to be a neo-liberal. And neither do most ancaps, but thats exactly what you are. What else would you call privatization, austerity, and free market worship? He did say he considered himself to be an anarchist. And the DPRK calls itself democratic. I would say he was an Individualist Anarchist. Individualist anarchists are still anti-capitalist. Rothbard was a capitalist ideologue. Never did understand why anyone considers chomsky an anarchist either. He opposes the state and capitalism and supports a decentralized, voluntary society without social or economic hierarchies. How is he not an anarchist? If property is not privately held, then surely the only other alternative is some No, the alternative is socialism: social ownership of the means of production. Im not sure where you got the idea that a central authority would be required for the workers to be able to run their workplace democratically. Speaking of coercion and authority, how is capitalism not exactly that? If the means of production are privately owned, then the owner has authority over the workers, right? How is that anarchism? This philosophy seems to essentially be communism under another name. Most anarchists are anarcho-communists, so yes. Why would you expect anarchists to oppose a stateless and classless society? There are no examples of authoritarian communism that have ever worked. There are very few examples of voluntary communism working. And as I said before, I consider chomsky a communist. Though I agree entirely with the authors arguments here concerning the behaviour of governments There will never be a functioning, successful self governing society anywhere on this planet as long as the masses remain ignorant of self awareness, self mastery, and independent thinking! Let me conclude by adding a comment to those the writer has listed so well as coming from Hume, Franklin, and others: HOW WONDERFUL FOR GOVERNMENTS THAT PEOPLE DONT THINK!: ADOLPH HITLER And so it is. edt Fantastic! My pleasure to have informed. edt The Revelations of an Elite Family Insider (2005) : The tools are in your hands, around you, everywhere it is even being drawn out of you. It is your duty towards yourself to reveal them to yourself and then do as you please with them. there is always a consequence. Love your work, Croco government is the worst investment I have ever been swindled out of. Doctrine Covenants 101:77-80, According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles. 78) That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. 79) Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. 80) And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. Man, not the state, is an eternal being and state should pay homage to people and their inalienable rights rather than the other way around. Id be interested in learning where I might find teased out debates as it relates to the arguments in favor of Anarchy over Govco. First, is there ANY rules, laws, understandings or agreements among ALL the Anarchy advocates that the world at large (outside an Anarchists world) could definitely count on should the non anarchist world want to engage with the Anarchist world? If so, what are they and how and why did they come about and how and why should the non Anarchist world trust them to stand firm over time? A few areas I could see as concerns by pro Govco advocates would be on how property ownership is addressed? How to defend against well developed and organized gangs/states who have an eye toward the conquest of the people and area occupied by anarchists? What rights if any would anarchists claim to property whether real or personal and how would title and adjudication of disputes be established and enforced, if any? Do anarchists recognize the right of a group to create and live under a government of their own choosing outside the natural geographical boundaries Anarchists inhabit assuming they were to already be living in an Anarchist state (non traditional)? Im new to this forum and was trying to see things from different perspectives and figured some have probably already addressed the issues Im asking about as well as many others and didnt feel it should be required to reinvent the wheel if theres perfectly good study of it out there already. tia 