Political Mythology 101 (Part Two)

in politics •  8 years ago  (edited)

This is a continuation of my previous Steemit article (https://steemit.com/politics/@larkenrose/political-mythology-101-part-one), listing some of the terms and concepts concerning politics and government which most people accept on faith, despite the fact that they are patently and provably false and invalid.

Myth #8: “You Agree to This By Living Here”

Disproof: The so-called “social contract” argument says that by merely living within the territorial jurisdiction of a certain ruling class, one has “agreed” to live by whatever rules those in power decide to call “law.” An actual contract is a specific and explicit mutual agreement. It is absurd to call it a “contract” when one side can arbitrarily decide what counts as the other side “agreeing” to abide by certain terms. To claim otherwise is to argue that it would be valid and correct for any street gang or Mafia to simply say, “By being in whatever area we claim as our turf, you agree to let us do whatever we want to you.”

Myth #9: “The Land of the Free”

Disproof: The place known as the United States is far less free today than it was even under the control of a monarch. The list of grievances against King George III spelled out in the Declaration of Independence are trivial compared to what is inflicted on the American people every day by their "own" government. The United States is not the most free country, economically or socially. Various detailed analysis of such things can easily be found online. More importantly, the equivalent of asking whose master is the least sadistic and domineering—which one whips his slaves the least, and doesn’t work them as hard—is not a measure of “freedom.” No slaves are free. Likewise, comparing the relative oppressiveness of various ruling classes is not a measure of freedom. There is no such thing as a “free country,” since the word “country” means the territorial jurisdiction under the control of a coercive ruling class.

Myth #10: “We Are the Government”

Disproof: This claim is patently false on its face. It is the equivalent of a car-jacking victim saying “I am the car-jacker.” If one is really unable to distinguish between, on the one hand, himself, and on the other hand, the group of people who demand tribute and obedience from him under threat of force, such a person is quite literally delusional.

Myth #11: “The Law of the Land”

Disproof: The literal reality is that what people are taught to view as “the law” does not come from “the will of the people,” or from “the land,” or from any other vague, abstract source. “Law”—meaning man-made legislation—is nothing more than official demands and commands, backed by the explicit threat of force, issued by the politicians who make up political bodies. The fact that others are allowed to petition, complain, and beg the politicians to enact different “laws” does not in any way mean that it is the people, or the “nation,” that are the source of such “laws.”

Myth #12: “The Rule of Law”

Disproof: It is a common refrain to say that Americans are lucky to live under the “rule of law” rather than the “rule of men.” However, since all such “laws” are simply threats and demands written and issued by human beings, it is a distinction without a difference.

Myth #13: “Due Process”

The idea that one must be provided with “due process” before one can be deprived of one’s liberty or property (as stated in the Fifth Amendment) is empty and meaningless when the “laws,” the procedures, the bureaucracies, the enforcers and the courts that decide such things are all created and controlled by the same group that is depriving people of their liberty and property. This is no different than a street gang saying, “We have carefully reviewed our own actions and have determined that we had the right to steal your car, steal your wallet and beat you up; we were merely enforcing the law, and you have received due process.”

Myth #14: “Government”

Yes, the very concept of “government” itself is bogus mythology. It amounts to believing in the Divine Right of Politicians—the notion that various pseudo-religious documents and rituals, such as constitutions and elections, can bestow upon a group of mere mortals the right to forcibly rule everyone else. It is no more rational or legitimate than the old “Divine Right of Kings” concept; the modern version just uses more complicated and convoluted rhetoric and mythology—such as all of the examples addressed above—to make it sound legitimate, moral and necessary. But it is not, and that is quite easy to prove.

Nearly all other terms connected to “government”—“law,” “regulation,” “crime,” “legality,” etc.—are equally artificial and illegitimate. In the next and final article in this three-part series, several independent logical proofs will be shown which each demonstrate that the idea of any political “authority”—the notion that any individual or group has the moral right to rule, and that everyone else therefore has a moral obligation to obey—is illogical to the point of being insane, as well as being inherently immoral and horrendously dangerous.

      • ( stay tuned for part three ) * * *
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I love your post larkenrose, but please read this and maybe improve a bit how your posts look.
I think it would improve the readability and the readership!
https://steemit.com/steemit/@razvanelulmarin/help-me-upvote-you

Cool, now I know how to center images. Thanks!

:) glad to have helped. as always an upvote and a follow is greatly appreciated!!

SteemBlubber always help me. :)

This is too much logic for the internet.

I'm just here for this sarcasm. *basks

One of the hallmarks of a free society is the concept of "private property". In the U.S., there's really no such thing.

The government charges a yearly rent on my home, in the form of property taxes. If I don't pay, I get evicted. The government also reserves the right to tell me what I am and am not allowed to do with my own home. So, when I "bought" my home, all I really bought was the revocable privilege of renting my home from the government.

The government reserves the right to extract money from my paycheck before I even get to see it. So, is my paycheck really my private property?

So yeah, you're right. The belief that the United States is the "land of freedom" is a complete myth.

If he ever gets around to actually addressing the substance, it might get interesting. Instead, he seems to have a hundred different ways to repeat the false assertions: "You consented! It's legitimate! They represent us!" Oddly, he then proclaims that he doesn't believe in morality. I'm not sure how someone can so zealously advocate for the RIGHT to rule (political "authority"), if he doesn't believe in such a thing as "right."

Moral relativity and a universally applied code of ethics are not, necessarily, contradictory.

As a moral relativist, I will contend that the NAP is the best defense of that relativity.

Hmm.... Sounds like an article I should write...

Would be glad to read it.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

No kidding, eh? I tried following along as best I could, but some of those Gladwell-esque leaps of logic were just too great for me.

Thanks for reading my work! Feel free to point out which parts you found unclear and I'll explain my logic in greater depth.

So if I have this right, you hate just about everything about being here, but you choose to stay?

Great article, Larken.

If I may add one thing: "Law of the land" did not originally mean "legislation some politicians write", but common law based on precedents and common law was originally a totally voluntary version of law. In Magna Carta, "Law of the land" was above the King. Later in both UK and USA, "law of the land" was twisted to mean "whatever the legislators want" by the trickery and mind control of the government. Doublespeak.

Common Law still spawned its own dictionary, therefore it, too, is a separate and distinct language from English. http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/top.htm

It all seems so obvious doesn't it? And yet w, as society, fall for it over and over again.

It makes you wonder what it will take for the masses to wake up. Great post brother. Works like this we can point to will help.

The one I hear all the time is, "the 2nd amendment gives us the right".

No it doesn't, the right exists regardless of what anyone writes on paper, says on television or screams from a rooftop.

Yep. The Bill of Rights confers nothing. It is supposed to protect rights from infringement by legislation, but the lack of any penalty, for legislators who infringe, has made it toothless.

The thought that anyone can consider themselves a free or critical thinker while believing any of these myths is astounding. Public schools really do an amazing job of indoctrination and impressing the fantasy that people think for themselves.

Indeed. And then if you go to college the culture of statism is ramped up to eleven.

Myth #8 is my favourite.
It can be derived from "Your agreement to this came into existance because youd dad was socializing with your mom without a condom."

I was particularly taken with 'the divine right of politicians' - I don't think I've ever heard it put so succinctly. Nice one, Larken! :D

Thank you Larken, I have to admit to being a bit lazy, posts of this sort and books like The Most Dangerous Superstition really seem "complete", enough so that adding to them in my own wording doesn't make sense.
And at the same time, you and many others have done such a great job that I had to start looking into writing about other topics.
Thanks again for putting these ideas out there!

Wonderful to see you on Steem Mr. Rose. I hope your presence will inspire even more people to join and help grow the voluntaryist community here.

Always a great post. Happy for my involvement in steemit to have run across you. Look forward to more

Regards to the Rule of law - Rule of law doesn't mean a whole lot when those that oversee the law don't abide by the law (Hitlery Clinton) - There is only one law.... the law of nature, the golden rule.

With respect to Myth #12: “The Rule of Law” I would point people to "The Myth of the Rule of Law" by John Hasnas

http://www.copblock.org/40719/myth-rule-law-john-hasnas/

A taste:

"I believe that, much as Orwell suggested, it is the public’s ability to engage in this type of doublethink, to be aware that the law is inherently political in character and yet believe it to be an objective embodiment of justice, that accounts for the amazing degree to which the federal government is able to exert its control over a supposedly free people. I would argue that this ability to maintain the belief that the law is a body of consistent, politically neutral rules that can be objectively applied by judges in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, goes a long way toward explaining citizens’ acquiescence in the steady erosion of their fundamental freedoms. To show that this is, in fact, the case, I would like to direct your attention to the fiction which resides at the heart of this incongruity and allows the public to engage in the requisite doublethink without cognitive discomfort: the myth of the rule of law."

Another great post Larken. You have a way of presenting this information in a super easy way to understand it. Looking forward to seeing The Mirror project!

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Excellent post! If anything needs to be added, for your Part 3, is that it won't help you if you delusionally think an obsolete law or a made up one apply to you. Such as happened to Ms. Free Inhabitant in the video below.

Great stuff, as usual, Larken. I was wondering what your thoughts on the vegan lifestyle were in relation to anarchy. I wrote a post trying to connect the two philosophies yesterday and threw in a reference to some of your work ;-) Would appreciate it if you gave it a read - https://steemit.com/anarchy/@mckeever/vegan-anarchy