"Almost" everyone accepts the myth that human beings are not trustworthy enough not moral enough, not wise enough to exist in peace, without a “government” to keep them in line.

Even many who agree that there would be no rulers in an ideal society often opine that human beings are not “ready” for such a society.

Such sentiments are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what “authority” is and what it adds to society. The idea of “government” as a “necessary evil” (as Patrick Henry described it) implies:

that the existence of “government” imposes restraints upon the violent aggressive nature of human beings, when in reality it does the exact opposite: the belief in “authority” legitimizes and “legalizes” aggression.

Who Gave Them ("Government") that Right?

There are several ways to demonstrate that the mythology the public is taught about “government” is self-contradictory and irrational. One of the simplest ways is to ask the question:

How does someone 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. Various legends tell of supernatural events (the Lady of the Lake, the Sword in the Stone, etc.) that determined who would have the right to rule over others.

Thankfully, humanity has, for the most part, outgrown those silly superstitions. Unfortunately, they have been replaced by new superstitions that are even less rational.

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.

The new justifications for “authority,” however, claim to accomplish the same amazing feat, but without supernatural assistance.

In short, despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations, all modern 'belief' in “government” rests on the notion that mere mortals can, through certain political procedures, bestow upon some people, various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with.

The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. 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, in the first place.

And that self-evident truth, all by itself, demolishes any possibility of legitimate “government.” The average person believes that “government” has the right to do numerous things that the average individual does not have the right to do on his own.

The obvious question then is: How, and from whom, did those in “government” acquire such rights? How, 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.

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 do not have.

Even the U.S. Constitution pretended to grant to “Congress” the right to “tax” and “regulate” certain things, though the authors of the Constitution had no such right themselves, and therefore could not possibly have given such a right to anyone else.

Because each person has the right to “rule” himself (as schizophrenic as that idea may be), he can, at least in theory, authorize someone else to rule over, him or her, self.

But a right he does not possess, and therefore cannot delegate to anyone else, is the right to rule (or lord) over, someone else. And even if “government” ruled only those individuals who had each willingly delegated their right to rule over themselves, it would still not be government.

And the number of people involved does not affect the logic.

To claim that a majority can bestow upon someone (or 'minority') a right which none of the individuals in that majority possess, is just as irrational as claiming that three people, none of whom has a car or money to buy a car, can give a car to someone else.

To put it in the simplest terms: you can’t give someone something you don’t have.

And that simple truth, all by itself, rules out all “government,” because .......

if those in “government” have only those rights possessed by those who elected them, then “government” loses the one ingredient that makes it “government”: the 'right to rule' over others (i.e. ”authority”).

If it has the same rights and powers as everyone else, there is no reason to call it “government.”

If the politicians have no more rights than you have, all of their demands and commands, all of their political rituals, “law” books, courts, and so on, amount to nothing more than, the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis.

Nothing they do can have any legitimacy, any more than if you did the same thing on your own, unless they somehow acquired rights that you do not have.

And that is impossible, since no one on earth, and no group of people on earth, could possibly have given them such superhuman rights.

No political ritual can alter morality.

No election can make an evil act into a good act.

If it is bad for you to do something, then it is bad for those in “government” to do it.

And if the same morality that applies to you, also applies to those in “government”, if those in “public office” have the same rights that you do, and no more – then “government” ceases to be government.

If judged by the same standards as other mortals are judged, those wearing the label of “government” are nothing but, (in many cases), a gang of thugs, terrorists, thieves and murderers, and their actions lack any legitimacy, any validity, any “authority”.

They are nothing but, (or not much more than), a band of crooks who insist that various documents and rituals have given them the right to be crooks.

Sadly, even most of their victims believe them.

Extracted from the free e-book of 2011 : "THE MOST DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION" by Larken Rose.

Bob
==>

_____________________________________________________________________________