Extortion Is Not Authority
There are people who are confused about this very simple point.
When you are told, Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you, what you are experiencing is extortion. You are experiencing threat, duress, and/or coercion.
You are NOT experiencing the application of authority.
There are some who will attempt to argue that because others are alleged to have authority over you, then those others are allowed to use coercion to make you obey their edicts.
This assumes that the others actually have authority over you. This assumption is provably false as you will learn as you keep reading.
I am deliberately disregarding the dictionary definitions of (command) authority since they all define authority as something real and do not address the provable fact that authority is a myth. For this reason I am going to describe authority as it is believed to be by many.
Once this stage is set, I will then disprove its reality and show why it is a myth.
If I had authority over you, then you would be expected and required to obey my commands. Commands such as:
- I forbid you to drink unpasteurized milk;
- I forbid you to drink alcohol;
- I forbid you to exceed the speed limit I set;
- I order you to pay me $400 for exceeding the speed limit I set;
- I forbid you to drive without a license; meaning;
- I forbid you to drive without my permission;
- I forbid you to drive a car that you have not registered with me;
- I demand that you give me 22.5% of your earnings;
- I order you to sell your home;
- I forbid you to distill whiskey and other spirits without a license;
- I forbid you to smoke marijuana;
- I forbid you to gamble;
- I forbid you to purchase a vibrator or other sex toy;
- I forbid you to pay for sex;
- I forbid you to carry a concealed weapon;
- I forbid you to carry a gun without my permission;
- I forbid you to own a fully automatic gun without paying me for permission.
Thus, Authority is any higher claim on any human or their property than that human has over their self or their property.
I'm sure that I do not have to convince you that I really don't have any authority over you. If I actually gave you those commands I would be concerned for you hurting yourself because of how hard you would be laughing.
If certain other people gave you the commands listed above, you would not hesitate to obey. You believe those other people do have authority over you.
What makes them different from me? As will be shown, absolutely nothing. All humans are born with equal rights; None are born with innate authority over any other.
These questions should be the only disproof of authority I need to present.
- Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
- Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
- Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?
The first two answers are self-evident. Which means the answer to the third question should be just as self-evident: If nobody had authority over anybody else, then they could not delegate that non-existent authority to those who call themselves government.
The logic is irrefutable: If we are all equal, none have authority over another, none can delegate an authority over another to any other person or collective of persons.
There are those who imagine that elected politicians (people who call themselves government) get their alleged authority by being elected.
The Voters were born with no innate authority over anybody else. The Voters can not delegate authority they don't have over anyone to anyone else. Voting does not and can not delegate authority that the voter does not have.
Voting is not a magic spell casting ritual whereby The Voters conjure up authority that The Voters don't personally have and then send this magical authority to the political candidates they voted for.
I will specifically address the inherent illogic and idiocy of voting on the next page.
By The Constitution
There are those who imagine that the Constitution gives those who call themselves government their alleged authority.
Since no one was born with innate authority over anybody else, this would include not having innate authority over humans not yet born. If this is true for those now living, it is also true for those long dead. We The (dead) People could not, and did not have any authority over people now living, therefore, We The (dead) People could not, and did not, imbue four pieces of paper with authority over you, me, or anybody else.
Lysander Spooner wrote of this in his essay No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority in 1870. Spooner's first paragraph states:
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. [Now 180+ years] And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority
Logic and simple facts lead to the inevitable conclusion that the 'government', never did, never could, and never can have any legitimate authority. In spite of the irrefutable nature of the logic, there are those who will still attempt to make an end run around the logic.
There are some who will invoke an imaginary deity and claim their invoked deity delegated the alleged authority to those who call themselves government. I've never seen credible proof of this imaginary deity.
If a deity does not exist, it can NOT delegate authority. If you demand that I provide proof that your deity doesn't exist, I demand that you prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist and I'll use your method. Regardless...
I can go to The Rotunda of the National Archives Building in downtown Washington, DC and see the United States Constitution, written by humans, that allegedly delegated authority to those who call themselves government. There is no such evidence to be found, written by any deity (with mystical glowing print) proving that any deity delegated any authority to those who call themselves government. In other words, there is no Divine Right of Kings or presidents or congresspersons.
A deity that allegedly created the whole universe should not have trouble creating proof of its anointing of human governors with some of the deity's alleged authority.
By Social Contract
There are some who believe the 'government' gets its alleged authority from a Social Contract. This alleged contract does not exist because it does not have the minimum elements required to be a valid contract. There are four basic elements required in order for a contract to exist. These elements are: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds).
An offer is a conditional promise. What did the 'government' offer (promise) you?
A consideration is a thing (of value) given in exchange for the offer. What did the 'government' ask of you in return (consideration) of what the 'government' promised you?
An acceptance of an offer is an expression of assent to its terms. Can you express assent to the terms of an offer when no terms have been presented to you? When did you assent to the terms of this alleged Social Contract?
A mutual agreement or meeting of minds exists when both parties understand and agree to the terms of the contract. Can you understand and agree to the terms of a contract when no such terms have been presented to you?
In reality, the Social Contract is merely a Theory. This theory alleges that humans gave authority to the 'government' in return for the 'government's' protection.
Even if the Social Contract was an actual contract, The 'government' has voided the contract by failing to perform its reciprocal duties. On the previous page, under the heading of The Truth of Government, you will find cited examples where 'government' has actually done the damage the myth alleges 'government' exists to protect us from.
This Social Contract Theory as set out by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes before him was, in essence, an attempt to make it appear that those under the Ruler's Rules (the king's edicts) at that point in time consented to both the Ruler and the Rules.
Locke's Social Contract Theory is the basis for the Consent Of The Governed phrase found in the Declaration of Independence. The Consent Of The Governed is just another artifice that attempts to make it appear that those under the Ruler's Rules consented to both the Ruler and the Rules.
Somebody else took the time to write up this alleged Social Contract.
By Consent of the Governed
There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person 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. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction.
-- Larken Rose --
If Threat, Duress, and Coercion is required to make people obey the rules of those governing, then there is NO consent. If people have actually consented to be governed, then why do those doing the governing need people with guns to make sure they are obeyed?
In order for one to consent (give permission for something to happen or be done), doesn't one need to be presented with a choice first? I was never asked for my consent to be governed; I was never presented with a choice. There is a reason why this choice has never been presented. Anyone who has mental competency would never consent to being governed when that governing is described as it actually is.
By consenting to be governed; You agree to obey all the ruler's laws, even laws that you know are wrong, unfair, immoral, and / or victimize those being governed. Furthermore, You agree that those doing the governing are allowed to use whatever level of force against you that they deem necessary to get you to comply with their dictates; whether the force used against you is beating you with a baton; locking you in a cage; or killing you if you are really set on disobeying.
In other words; By consenting to be governed; you agree to obey their laws; and you agree they can kill you if you withdraw your consent by defying them and their laws.
Point of logic: If consent can not be withdrawn, then it is not consent. Consent which can not be withdrawn lays bare the fraudulent nature of the artifice of the Consent Of The Governed.
Chain of Authority Examined
- A chain of authority has a subordinate end.
- A chain of authority has a superior end.
- Which may also be called a sovereign end.
- The person allegedly holding a position of superior authority is presumed to have a higher claim on a person in a position of subordinate authority.
- This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.
- For comparison, a plantation owner's ownership of a cotton picking slave was presumed to have had a higher claim on the slave than the slave had over him or her self, property, and labor.
- Any unagreed or forced relationship of superior and inferior authority is by definition: enslavement.
- The alleged authority of those calling themselves government hinges upon The Consent Of The Governed.
- Governmentalists and Statists presume and pretend everybody has consented.
- This belief is excoriated just by stating: I DO NOT CONSENT!
- There are some Governmentalists and Statists who will claim that acquiescence to the laws (politician's opinions) is consent. They are wrong.
- For example, I always used seat belts before there were laws (politician's opinions) commanding I always wear seat belts. To properly protest that law, I would have to do something that lessens my survival odds in a collision - Not wear the seat belt.
- Examination of alleged consent finds that it was never actually given, only usurped or fabricated. I'll come back to this.
- Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have? Well... If they don't have it...
- Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else? Claiming you were born with authority over me is a declaration of war with me. You have been warned!
- The alleged authority of statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances is presumed to come from the legislators.
- This means the alleged authority imbued in the written words of law (politician's opinions) is the authority that the legislators (politicians) are alleged to have over everyone else.
- Legislators (politicians) are not born with this alleged authority over everyone else, therefore this alleged authority must be delegated to the legislators (politicians).
- The main source of this alleged authority is presumed to come with the office.
- The other part of this alleged authority comes from the selection of a person to hold the office.
- If you do not have authority over me, then you can not select any person to have an authority over me. You can only select a person to have authority over you.
- Voting for a person to hold the office of legislator does NOT give him authority over me unless I also voted for that politician.
- Prove I've ever voted for any present officeholder. (You can't because I didn't.)
- If appointed to an office, if the person doing the appointing does not have authority over me, then the delegation of authority and the appointee can not have authority over me.
- The person doing the appointing was put into their office the same way... By appointment or by vote. The same failure to have authority over me still exists.
- Returning to the alleged authority of the office. These offices were created by people who were not born with authority over me.
- Therefore these offices do not have authority over me.
- Focusing on the federal level constitution, also known as the highest law in the land, Those long dead authors of the constitution did not have authority over me.
- Therefore, the constitution has no authority over me.
- And neither do the offices created by the constitution.
Any alleged authority over me is bogus and fraudulent.
Are You a Contented Slave?
If this makes you feel discomfort, anxiety, or worse; you are a well conditioned slave. As Frederick Douglass, himself a former actual slave, has written:
I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right...
I would modify Mr. Douglass' words thus: A contented slave must be able to detect no inconsistencies in government; he must be made to feel that government is right...