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

cooperates while claiming to be against violence is in fact rewarding the violence of thestate. When an act of aggression is committed-whether by “authority” or anyone elsenon-violence,by definition, ceases to be an option. The only question is whether theaggressive violence will go unchallenged, or whether defensive force will be used tocounter it. Either way, violence will occur.Of course, the thieves, thugs and murderers who declare their crimes to be “legal”whichevery tyrant in history has done-will always brand any who resist them as criminals andterrorists. Only those who feel no shame at being labeled “criminals,” because they haveshed the myth of “authority” and recognize that the term “law” is often used to try tocharacterize something evil as something good, have any chance at all of achievingfreedom. Again, somewhat ironically, the more people there are who understand selfownershipand the mythical nature of “authority,” and who are willing to fight for what isright, and fight against what is “legal” but wrong, the less violent the road to truecivilization (peaceful coexistence) will be.Side Effects of the MythLooking back in history, there is no shortage of examples of man’s inhumanity to man,examples of oppression and suffering, violence and hatred, and situations and eventswhich do not reflect well on the human race in general. And, though many of the mostblatant injustices in history were the obvious product of the belief in “government,” suchas war and overt oppression, many other injustices which are not usually attributed to“government” action would also have been impossible without the involvement of“authority.”In addition to the example of whether slavery could have existed had it not been “legally”enforced (as mentioned above), similar questions could be asked about the treatment ofthe American Indians. If not for the authoritarian “government” edicts and the statemercenaries to enforce them, would there have been such a large-scale, concerted effortto exterminate or forcibly evict the natives from the lands they had inhabited forgenerations? No doubt there would still have been smaller conflicts due to the clash ofcultures and demands for farming and hunting lands, but would it have been in anyone’spersonal interest to engage in large-scale violent combat?