the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111

Recommendations

Info

patriotism. People may feel love for a certain culture, or a certain location and the peoplewho live there, or to some philosophical ideal, and mistake that for love of country, butultimately, a “country” is simply the area that a particular “government” claims the rightto rule. That is what defines the borders, and it is those borders which define the“country.”Attempting to Rationalize the IrrationalPeople who consider themselves educated, open-minded and progressive do not want tothink of themselves as the slaves of a master, or even the subjects of a ruling class.Because of this, much rationalizing and obfuscating has been done in an attempt to denythe fundamental nature of “government” as a ruling class, A lot of verbal gymnastics,misleading terminology and mythology have been manufactured to try to obscure the truerelationship between “governments” and their subjects, This mythology is taught tochildren as “civics,” even though most of it is completely illogical and flies in the face ofall evidence. The following covers a few of the popular types of propaganda used toobfuscate the nature of “authority.”The Myth of ConsentIn the modem world, slavery is almost universally condemned. But the relationship of aperceived “authority” to his subject is very much the relationship of a slave master(owner) to a slave (property). Not wanting to admit that, and not wanting to condonewhat amounts to slavery, those who believe in “authority” are trained to memorize andrepeat blatantly inaccurate rhetoric designed to hide the true nature of the situation. Oneexample of this is the phrase “consent of the governed.”There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by oneperson using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled“consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. Thesecond can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two –consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is acontradiction. If there is mutual consent, it is not “government”; if there is governing,there is no consent. Some will claim that a majority; or the people as a whole, have giventheir consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns
the concept of consent on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give consentfor something to be done to someone else. That is simply not what “consent” means. Itdefies logic to say, “I give my consent for you to be robbed.” Yet that is the basis of thecult of “democracy”: the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority,That is not “consent of the governed”; it is forcible control of the governed, with the“consent” of a third party.Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else, “I agree to let youforcibly control me,” the moment the controller must force the “controllee” to dosomething, there is obviously no longer “consent.” Prior to that moment, there is no“governing” – only voluntary cooperation. Expressing the concept more preciselyexposes its inherent schizophrenia: “I agree to let you force things upon me, whether Iagree to them or not.”But in reality, no one ever agrees to let those in “government” do whatever they want. So,in order to fabricate “consent” where there is none, believers in “authority” add another,even more bizarre, step to the mythology: the notion of “implied consent.” The claim isthat, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is “agreeing” to abide bywhatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule thattown, state, or country. The idea is that if someone does not like the rules, he is free toleave the town, state, or country altogether, and if he chooses not to leave, that constitutesgiving his consent to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction.Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense. It makes nomore sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him, “By driving acar in this neighborhood on Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car.” One personobviously cannot decide what counts as someone else “agreeing” to something. Anagreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter intosome arrangement. Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor isliving in one’s own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within therealm he rules. It is one thing for someone to say, “If you want to ride in my car, you maynot smoke,” or “You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off.” It is quiteanother to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property. Whoever hasthe right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place.That is the basis of the idea of private property: that there can be an “owner” who has theexclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property. The owner of a house
Page 8 and 9: ight to give and enforce commands.
Page 10 and 11: U.S. Constitution, for example, is
Page 12 and 13: problems could be solved overnight
Page 14 and 15: demand being called “law” and
Page 18 and 19: has the right to keep others out of
Page 20 and 21: For example, it is also claimed tha
Page 22 and 23: slaves. Likewise, the only way a ru
Page 25 and 26: Letting Go of the MythA growing num
Page 27 and 28: ees, the solution is to create an a
Page 29 and 30: calm reasoning, is because their be
Page 31 and 32: “authority” as utterly irration
Page 33 and 34: The problem is that the people are
Page 35 and 36: the group possesses, And that self-
Page 37 and 38: can, by mere declaration, make two
Page 39 and 40: “legislation” involves such lun
Page 41 and 42: Everyone, at all times, makes his o
Page 43 and 44: A suicide bomber who intentionally
Page 45 and 46: of oppression, injustice, theft and
Page 47 and 48: And that is if the person started w
Page 49 and 50: It is bad enough for those who are
Page 51 and 52: unpleasantness on others in a way t
Page 53 and 54: taught that obedience is a virtue a
Page 55 and 56: at the behest of “authority,” s
Page 57 and 58: how to sit in a chair, what to have
Page 59 and 60: Making MonstersThere should also be
Page 61 and 62: them as mere humans instead of trea
Page 63 and 64: aggressors, subjugating the people
Page 65 and 66: thugs is usually direct and honest
Page 67 and 68:
“authority” of “law” can ta
Page 69 and 70:
is that, by pretending to relieve t
Page 71 and 72:
invasion and occupation of Iraq by
Page 73 and 74:
only is any soldier who does so lik
Page 75 and 76:
The sad irony is that the American
Page 77 and 78:
Proudly Committing EvilWhether it i
Page 79 and 80:
the country.” Such rhetoric, as c
Page 81 and 82:
he must be made to feel that slaver
Page 83 and 84:
In addition to the waste, corruptio
Page 85 and 86:
always been funded by the creators;
Page 87 and 88:
As in many cases of authoritarian c
Page 89 and 90:
someone. But that deterrent effect
Page 91 and 92:
The cop who engages in such intrusi
Page 93 and 94:
The two live otherwise similar live
Page 95 and 96:
driver. Taking it one step further,
Page 97 and 98:
eceives. The believers in “author
Page 99 and 100:
violence it takes, up to and includ
Page 101 and 102:
occurring right in front of crowds
Page 103 and 104:
schools. Why do the two feel so mor
Page 105 and 106:
The degree to which different voter
Page 107 and 108:
ights to any Social Security “ben
Page 109 and 110:
utterly failed to get an inch close
Page 111 and 112:
unnoticed by those who advocate def
Page 113 and 114:
passengers first subject themselves
Page 115 and 116:
apists. Because “government” tr
Page 117 and 118:
acknowledge, because it is so diffe
Page 119 and 120:
human society will be a constant wa
Page 121 and 122:
education, the right to health care
Page 123 and 124:
“war on drugs,” or to criticize
Page 125 and 126:
course, but their belief in that et
Page 127 and 128:
own themselves, and the rulers have
Page 129 and 130:
oppression is almost always replace
Page 131 and 132:
underlying problem is not who sits
Page 133 and 134:
accept that the choice is the maste
Page 135 and 136:
only road to true freedom is for th
Page 137 and 138:
problem, and in fact add to the rea
Page 139 and 140:
A Mix of Wisdom and InsanityIn the
Page 141 and 142:
not stop there. No contract can eve
Page 143 and 144:
is no positive, active solution to
Page 145 and 146:
As such, the purpose of this final
Page 147 and 148:
ever thought about, and everything
Page 149 and 150:
the “President’s” hand than h
Page 151 and 152:
That is called “free will.” Man
Page 153 and 154:
efore the respective “governments
Page 155 and 156:
Compare how the same exact situatio
Page 157 and 158:
people who end up in charge will ha
Page 159 and 160:
wrong-if anything outside of the pr
Page 161 and 162:
(because the promise is patently ri
Page 163 and 164:
a system of control, instead of tra
Page 165 and 166:
Without the myth of “authority,
Page 167 and 168:
imprison any caught possessing alco
Page 169 and 170:
constant violence and mayhem. Such
Page 171 and 172:
absence of any claimed “authority
Page 173 and 174:
its customers that: 1) it is very g
Page 175 and 176:
depend upon appealing to the consci
Page 177 and 178:
“government,” even the most gre
Page 179 and 180:
antithesis of the violence and coer
Page 181 and 182:
child will learn to do likewise. Th
Page 183 and 184:
ute force (with the approval of the
Page 185 and 186:
how long would slavery have continu
Page 187 and 188:
cooperates while claiming to be aga
Page 189 and 190:
“illegal” substances) exists on
Page 191 and 192:
of “authority” used to prevent
Page 193 and 194:
of resources, effort and ingenuity
Page 195 and 196:
human beings exercising free will a
Page 197 and 198:
The solution to most of society’s
Page 199:
A Note About the Copyright ...A “
show all

the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?