Synaptic Sparks

Examining Authority

Page Scroll ⇵
Site Nav ⇵
⇇
⇈
⇉


Last File Save

Authority Example

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.

If I had authority over you, then you would be expected and required to obey my commands. Commands such as:

Thus, Authority is any higher claim on any human or their property than that human has over their self or their property.

And just so you know, those bullet-pointed items of alleged authority are based upon my knowledge of specific laws demanding / commanding such specific obedience.

Disproving Authority

I'm sure that I do not have to convince you that I really don't have any such listed authority over you. If I actually gave you those commands I listed above, I would be concerned about you hurting yourself because of how hard you would be laughing.

Yet if certain other people gave you any of the commands listed above, many of you would not hesitate to obey. Some of you believe those people called government have such authority over you, so you will obey like a good submitizen (sic).

What makes them different from me? As will be shown, absolutely nothing.

  1. Can anybody delegate (give) an authority that they themselves do not have?
  2. If all humans are alleged to be born with equal rights, then is it true that no human can be born with automatic authority over another human?
  3. Doesn't being born with this lack of automatic authority include any humans called government?
  4. Doesn't being born with this lack of automatic authority include any humans called The Voters?
  5. Doesn't this mean that the only way authority over any specific individual human can be delegated is for that human to specifically delegate authority over them self to another?
  6. When did you delegate such authority over yourself to The Voters?
  7. When did you delegate such authority over yourself to those called government?
  8. What evidence do you have to prove that I delegated authority to The Voters or those called government?

Isn't it true that if no human has authority over any other human, then that missing authority can not be delegated?

Delegation Imagined By Voting

There are those who imagine that elected politicians (people who get called government) get their alleged authority by being elected.

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 later.

Delegation Imagined By The Constitution

There are those who imagine that the Constitution is what gives those called government their alleged authority. However the Constitution can not delegate authority without the lunacy of voting. See below.

Since no one was born with automatic authority over anybody else, this would include not having automatic 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.

Logic and simple facts lead to the inevitable conclusion that the 'government', never did, never could, and never can have any legitimate, non bogus 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.

The flaws in the Constitution have been known since 1870 when Lysander Spooner wrote his treatise No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority. The following quote is the first paragraph of No Treason.

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

Perhaps these words are why this historical document is not on the required reading list of any "government" school. Telling the truth... Such sacrilege of the religion of government.

Delegation Imagined By God

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 magical 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.

Delegation Imagined 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 of government 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.

Delegation Imagined 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), 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 any 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. If the ruler's rules require you to push Jews and undesirables onto cattle cars, then that's what you do as a good law abiding citizen. This is wrong and those who do this without further thought are wrong.

This was done under government's alleged authority during Hitler's governance of Germany.

Nazi's loading cattlecars with people.

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. (Or giving you a free train ride.)

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

Since this page is about examining the myth of authority, it is only fitting that such examination would explore the concept of a chain of authority.

  1. A chain of authority has a subordinate end.
  2. A chain of authority has a superior end.
  3. Which may also be called a sovereign end.
  4. 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.
  5. This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.
  6. 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.
  7. Any unagreed or forced relationship of superior and inferior authority is by definition: enslavement.
  8. In the U.S. the alleged authority of those calling themselves government hinges upon The Consent Of The Governed.
  9. Governmentalists and Statists presume and pretend everybody has consented.
  10. This belief is excoriated just by stating: I DO NOT CONSENT!
  11. There are some Governmentalists and Statists who will claim that acquiescence to the laws (politician's opinions) is consent. They are wrong.
  12. 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.
  13. Examination of alleged consent finds that it was never actually given, only usurped, fabricated, or imagined.
  14. Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have? Well... If they don't have it...
  15. Was anybody born with authority over anybody else? Claiming you were born with authority over me is a declaration of war against me. You have been warned!
  16. The alleged authority of statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances is presumed to come from the legislators. (Mere elected men and women called government.)
  17. This means the alleged authority imbued in the written words of law (politician's opinions) is the authority that the legislators are alleged to have over everyone else.
  18. Legislators are not born with this alleged authority over everyone else, therefore this alleged authority must be delegated to the legislators.
  19. The main source of this alleged authority is presumed to come with the office.
  20. The other part of this alleged authority comes from the selection of a person to hold the office.
  21. If you do not have authority over me, then you can not select any person to have authority over me. You can only select a person to have authority over you.
  22. Your voting for a person to hold the office of legislator does NOT give that elected person authority over me, because you do not have authority over me to begin with.
  23. In order to prove that I delegated authority over myself to some elected official, you need to prove I voted for that officeholder. As the voting system exists, nobody can be proven to have delegated authority over themselves to the election winning politician. Lysander Spooner wrote of this in his treatise as well.
  24. If appointed to an office, and if the person doing the appointing does not have authority over me, then the delegation of authority to the appointee can not delegate authority over me.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. Therefore, the constitution has no authority over me.
  28. Neither do the offices created by the constitution.

Any alleged authority over me is bogus and fraudulent.

Extortion Is Not Authority

There are people who are confused about this very simple point. There are some who will attempt to argue that because mere men and women called government are alleged to have authority over other humans, then those mere men and women called government are allowed to use coercion to make you obey their edicts.

This assumes that the mere men and women called government actually have authority over you. This assumption is provably false as you should have learned from reading above.

Some confused people I have interacted with insist on calling extortion authority.  Calling threats, duress, or coercion authority does not make such acts not wrong, regardless of the label applied.

Just a tangential thought and comment:
The consent of the people means that the mere men and women called government are allowed to use threat, duress, or coercion against the other mere men and women not called government? WTF!?

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that extortion is wrong. One only needs to be able to understand that extortion is the over-riding of one’s free will by way of threat, duress, or coercion. One only needs to be able to recognize that harm is being done, by both the threat and the actions of the threat being executed.

Calling extortion authority just hides the action’s wrongness from the indoctrinated.

When a carjacker points a gun at you and orders you out of your car everybody is aware that such an action is wrong.

When a cop points a gun at you and orders you out of your car everybody assumes the cop has authority; everybody assumes the cop’s action is not wrong. 

The indoctrinated who believe in authority can not recognize that the cop’s action is exactly the same as the carjacker’s. - WRONG!