There are two things that “government” does best:
1) Gives malicious psychos a way to drastically increase the amount of harm they can do, and;
2) Transforms regular, decent people into malicious psychos (and then drastically increases the amount of harm they can do).
That statement should be pretty dang self-evident to anyone even vaguely familiar with human history, but I might as well elaborate and expound on it a bit. Because this isn’t just an unhappy coincidence; it is what the belief in “authority” naturally causes.
First of all, how much harm can one malicious psychopath do, on his own? If he’s careful and sneaky enough, he might be able to victimize a number of people, maybe even dozens. And that’s bad (obviously), but it’s also statistically trivial compared to what malicious psychopaths can do—and what they have done, and continue to do—when they acquire positions of political power.
The primary difference is the belief in “authority”, not in the mind of the psychopath, but in the mind of the decent people around him. For example, suppose some serial killer publicly declared, “I want to see how many people I can torture and murder this week! So who’s with me?” Not only would damn near no one volunteer to help him, but a lot of people would immediately rush to stop him, by any means necessary.
However, if instead that psychopath started a career in politics, and gradually got to a position where he had a myriad of enforcers at his command, consisting of police and soldiers, who thought that they were merely “enforcing the law” or “protecting the nation” as they followed orders, the results would be heinous. And this isn’t hypothetical. Pick up any history book, and you will see example after example after example.
Even the most vicious regimes in history were mostly enforced by normal, average people just doing as they were told, following the orders of a perceived “authority.” And because the violence was called “law,” and because they had been taught to view obedience to “authority” as a virtue, and disobedience as a sin, they helped to carry out horrendous acts of terrorism, torture, oppression and murder. And this phenomenon has occurred all over the world, in different times and different places, among different races, religions and cultures, with the one constant being a widespread belief in “authority,” and belief in an obligation to obey “authority.” This point cannot be stressed enough:
Contrary to what many people think, or wish,
“government” does not act as a check against
the imperfections and flaws of mankind;
it acts as a drastic amplifier of the
imperfections and flaws of mankind.
And that is true on the individual level, as well as on a mass scale. And that brings up item #2: “Government” transforms regular, decent people into malicious psychos. Even without all of the historical examples, it should be very easy to predict this phenomenon.
The moment someone imagines himself to have special “authority”—the moment someone thinks that he has the right, or even the duty, to coercively interfere in other people’s lives—then he will automatically start treating others as his inferiors. This is true of all types of “law enforcers,” soldiers, tax collectors, “government” inspectors, and all manner of other busy-body bureaucrat.
In fact, it would happen to you too, if you were given power over others, and were convinced that you had the absolute moral right to exercise that power. By analogy, if you actually believed that slavery was legitimate and righteous, there is no chance that you would treat “your” slaves as equals. You might be more sadistic, or less sadistic about it, but if you truly viewed them as your property, there would be a 100% chance that you would mistreat them.
Likewise, if you are a thief or thug of the state, and you truly believe that others are obligated to obey you, you may be more or less power-happy and malicious about it, but you would absolutely mistreat and victimize people. And if those people complained or resisted, you would feel justified in increasing the abuse in order to obtain “compliance” from them. In fact, you would feel obligated to use whatever threats or coercion necessary to force them to do as you say.
And that, to be blunt, would make you into an evil asshole. So no, it’s not a coincidence that so many cops are obnoxious bastards on a power trip. It’s not a coincidence that so many “tax collectors” are grouchy, vindictive jerks. It’s not a coincidence that so many soldiers become sadistic murderers. People who imagine themselves to be agents of “authority” have only two options: either make other people obey them, or quit their job.
If what you do on a daily basis is forcibly control people who haven’t threatened or harmed anyone else, you will do whatever mental gymnastics you have to to try to justify your actions, and that will require you to blame your victims, and hurt and “punish” them for their disobedience, all while imagining yourself to be the good guy, and imagining them to be the nasty “criminal” for not mindlessly obeying you.
With all of that in mind, it is ludicrous for so many people to still look to “government” and “authority” to protect the decent people from the sadistic psychos of the world. The belief in “authority” makes sadistic psychos, and empowers sadistic psychos. All of history screams that fact, yet so many people’s authoritarian indoctrination makes them unable to hear it. They still think that the solution to people being imperfect is to give some of those imperfect people (some of the least perfect around, in fact) the right to rule everyone else. Then they are continually surprised by the results.
(Larken Rose is a speaker, author and activist, having advocated the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership and a stateless, voluntary society for over twenty years. Donations to help support his articles, videos and other projects can be made by PayPal to "[email protected]" or by Bitcoin to 13xVLRidonzTHeJCUPZDaFH6dar3UTx5js.)
OK guys you talk about the police been brutal, now the most important and a bit aggressive question. Will you take responsibility for the safety of those who resist arrest? It is much more prudent not to resist the officer and then have your day in court. That advice is much more reasonable when explaining to folks that have never encountered a police situation. I explained to people that sometimes they may encounter a situation where a police officer has been called to investigate a complaint and the start of it is to respond, observe and interview people to see if there is a need for police action. Sometimes it is obvious and sometimes it isn't and may not involve the person being questioned. For the police officer to do the job they need an assessment. I would explain that the best course is to stay calm and answer the inquiries. If you were not a problem you most likely will not have a problem.
Morality and practicality are not the same thing. There are a LOT of occasions--millions, in fact--when Americans would have the absolute moral right to resist aggression by "law enforcers," up to and including deadly force, but which I would highly suggest they not attempt, because it would just get them killed. So if you're just giving practical advice, I agree. But if you're saying it is morally wrong to not cooperate with badge-wearing aggressors who wish to detain, interrogate, search, etc., without probable cause to suspect any crime, then you are sorely mistaken.
This is why I study kung fu and brazilian jiu-jitsu.
Sure, they have some training... but it is rare to find an enforcer that has anything close to black belt level skills in physical self defense.
Definitely agree about not attempting to defend yourself... simply because it will end up being the entire police force of City X against you. That being said, it is always morally right to resist... but prepare for bad results. The deck is stacked against anyone that defends themselves from false imprisonment because 99% of the population (maybe 96% these days...) believes the lies they are taught.
People should have the means available to take responsibility for their own safety. If you 'were not a problem' then where is the 'problem' coming from?
Never answer police questions verbally. Ever.
Make them give their questions in writing.
Review which should (and should not) be answered with counsel (even your own).
Then answer any you want to answer very carefully.
Your answers can and will be used against you.
That is the fundamental master and servant power struggle. The master asks questions, the servant answers them.
Learn to not answer questions (see I don't answer questions on youtube) and assume the role of the master... ask your questions and they will soon find some reason to leave you be.
So true. So many people don't see what is going on or what role they are being regulated into by failure to assume the role they rightly occupy.
Of course, our schools teach people to be obedient. You will never be rewarded for questioning your teachers or demanding that they answer your questions.
Rozsencrantz and Guildenstern are dead has an amazing questions game. Get good at this and you can beat the authoritarians every time... especially once you start realizing that they have no authority until you "consent".
Ok, statist.
It is still hard to throw off the thoughts that the police are here to protect me. Even though I have never seen that happen, and I have personally, or indirectly seen the abuses of police power.
I have been taught to believe in a system.
Its like I have been taught that geese lay golden eggs, when what really comes out of that hole is shit and more shit. And logically there is nothing else that a govern-cement can do. Even with the best intentions and the best people in charge.
Oh how I have been hoodwinked!
Hey, you've almost certainly seen cops being brave heroes..... on TV. There's a reason they call it "programming."
Yeah just look at all the police programming done in tv. Probably half are cop shows. All the csi shows, cops, judge shows, “investigative” journalists shows featuring former attorneys, not to mention all the news media showing interviewing po pos or praising their “sacrifice” because without police we’d all be cannibals eating eAch other and putting human bones through our noses.
Not my childhood!
I loved CHiPS!
And Adam 12.
I even sorta like the few shows I saw of Miami Vice.
Now, I know so much truth, that I can't watch CSI without wanting to break the TV.
Still, I can't let the "Cops are brave heroes" lie go.
The only reason I haven't gone full "Ban all police officers" is that the still clean up the messes we make on roads. Although I think I could do better with a combination ambulance / tow truck with a killer grabber arm.
Not only could you do a better job, but plenty of people--including me--would VOLUNTARILY pay you to do that, without you having to violently extort us. (And yeah, I liked lots of shows about brave cops too. And movies with dinosaurs in them. Now I think those are equally unlikely to happen in the real world ... but dinosaurs are more likely.)
There are many instances in which the police might actually protect you, even in the real world. Since the means to protect yourself is outlawed in many places you may not have any choice other than to ask for their protection. This reality doesn't legitimize their 'authority'. The 'authorities' imposed this 'solution' in first instance.
I should reiterate, that i have never experienced the police helping me, and I have been seriously injured by the police. My personal experience.
My friends personal experience... cops have been friendly while writing a ticket is about the best. Other of my friends... well, they are now dead.
And, no person, body or govern-cement has the right to keep you from protecting yourself. But, they may punish and/or fine you for doing so.
Shuts down 😂
Great article, with all the agencies and enforcer in place what would be a better solution to them? I believe anarchy has a place in our future but I feel there is transition time of libertarianism and transparency. Maybe a communities of tribes that agree to work together for a better life of more freedom and liberty. All voluntary of course. Any other ideas of how we could take responsibility and reinvent the way we live? @larkenrose
Please check out the videos I posted in this thread for read3986. Anarchists should learn from history the danger of 'transition times'. Libertarians still believe in power that they control through 'authority' (and the 'transparency' that implies). Instead of diluting principles to accommodate 'reality', it would be better to focus on rapidly educating people as to what taking responsibility for their own lives means e.g. learning how to de-escalate actual or potential conflicts (particularly ones that could lead to violence).
You could vote for Adam Kokesh for President. @adamkokesh
He wants to dissolve the federal government in a peaceful manner.
You know he is a threat to the establishment, because right after announcing his run for president they arrested him in Texas without any charges.
Hmmm, I think that might have to be the topic of my next Steemit article.
It's amazing how ignorant the masses are of history. Not even in the case of ancient history but most people don't have much knowledge of modern history. I guess they're just going to have to keep repeating it...
Anarchists are generally portrayed in history as fringe characters with communists receiving disproportionate attention. These vids help to set the record straight:
Anarchists are a far greater threat to established thought programming than communism, hence no-one is aware of the history. It's also a good antidote to the familiar 'there would be chaos under anarchy' ('under' being the wrong word, but the one that gets used).
Thanks so much for posting these. I can't believe I've never come across them before. I've only had time to watch the first so far... but must say it is quite good.
No problem, Tony. Here's another that is more topical.
Thanks much! I really need to learn the Russian language. I'm currently learning French with my kids (I know some Spanish and Japanese... but it seems that real revolutionary action has been mostly covered in French and Russian).
Don't forget Spanish :)
Yep, definitely spanish peoples as well.
Again, thanks so much for the video links. I had no idea about the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Now I just need to learn Kurdish, Arabic, and Turkish with the kids and convince my wife that moving there would be a good idea.
If only...
Again, many thanks.
Excellent video. Thanks again.
Half of the masses don't remember what happened last week.
Half the time I don't remember what happened yesterday (yes, that is a queensryche reference).
Very Interesing blog Thanks @larkenrose
Great, upvoted and shared to almost 7000 people on twitter, hope this helps spread the word? Peace!
Thanks. Great memes. I am always one to add my dig in the ribs of big government. The best way we all can do so is crypto! I would donate but I am not paying a $30 fee to give you ten of fifteen bux
Bitcoin = broken (not fast, free and instant)
Litecoin?
Great post!
Everybody should read this.
Upvoted and resteemed.
Unfortunately most of the people are brainwashed and they can't understand such things. Some of the disadvantages of watching alot of t.v.
Great insight about our society.
claim by larken, or presented by him: Ted Bundy; Responsible to 1 10 000th of the civilian deaths caused by the avarage US President.
Now why is that false? because the President does NOT do the actual killing, its the order followers that does it, as thus is the true issue here. Being something Mark Passio strongly points out.
The false belief, that there is sutch a thing s authority, comes secondary or in parrallel to that. Unless you choose to view both as being the same. (something it is to a sertain degree)
Qute from the article: "In fact, it would happen to you too, if you were given power over others, and were convinced that you had the absolute moral right to exercise that power"
Just as a point here, now what position deos this then put you @larkenrose in as someone manny people listen to and regard as a form of authority? Because you say alot toa makes snes and is relevant, thus manny wil, based on that, and the fact that you do ahve a "following", deem most of not all of what you say as valid, even if some is not.
Something to keep in mind. (Im curious to see if Larken whould respond to this comment with that point fully in mind)
1 - The fact that order-followers are 100% responsible for their own actions does NOT mean that those who give those orders are blameless.
2 - Being a supposed "authority" on some subject is a completely distinct concept from the RIGHT TO RULE, which is the kind of "authority" I constantly bash. I don't claim any right to rule anyone, or any power over anyone.
1: based on an asumption. 2: point was clearly not in mind.
So an expected response tbh.
I dont disagree with your main points in your articles and videos, nor do I claim that there inst any degree of blame on the part of the order giver. Infact I use some of it as inspiration to write some of my Norwegan articles.
The killing comes from the belief, it does not come 'secondary or in parrallel to that'. Both (belief/killing) are not the same. Without the belief it would not happen. I agree regarding the culpability, but it is the belief that is the key element.
the government is silently responsible for rotting society
Good post. I lived in England for many formative years, and when I came to Australia it was a genuine shock to see a revolver strapped to the hip of an officer and have a wave of fear wash over me instead of what I was used to.
I think the LACK of firearms made them more human and approachable and more like they should be, peacekeepers. In turn, not having the firearm at their side made them less oppressive in their approach to a situation.
I think ultimately we must recognise we all have one life to live with no-one having the right to oppress anyone else. Common law, a jury of peers and treating others as one would wish to be treated is all that is needed here for true innovation in society to be reborn.
How would you react if you saw a revolver strapped to the hip of another civilian? 'Common law', in the sense you are referring to, is not recognized by the authorities. Catch 22. Until 'jurors' (ordinary people) and anyone involved in the administration of justice believes that 'authority' comes from ordinary people like themselves and cannot be imposed from above, the 'common law' is redundant.
I was standing in for my wife at her gallery a while back and a guy came in with a pistol on his hip.
I walked up, shook his hand, thanked him for being armed, and told him I'd give him 10% off of anything he decided he liked because having people like him in the store made everyone safer.
Maybe I'm an oddball.
Of course, I completely agree with what you are saying. We need real juries and not struck juries... but most people have never even heard of struck juries.
Why not have a gun yourself?
To answer your initial question, I believe everyone should have the choice to wear a gun if they chose, as long as relevant training is done so they dont go off 'half cocked'. There would most probably be much less crime. My shock was in that I had not seen anyone up until that point wear one so it was new to me, and on the realization I could not wear one, was taken aback. Both England and Australia do not allow guns to be carried by the general populous,.
As for the common law, I repeat my statement that no one has the right to oppress another and that this 'unrecognized' area of law as you put it should be a part of the innovation society needs to replace the current system moving forward. So I am not sure of your point here. If you are saying common law is not required as a jury of peers is all you need I disagree. You need a basic set of Laws to be taught to everyone so there is a clear understanding of what are the basics underlying society so that there should be no need of a jury, but you of course need one should someone stray.
How would you enforce 'relevant training'? My understanding of consentualism is that if we expect others to trust us to know what we're doing we have to extend that trust ourselves.
You believe everyone should have the choice to wear a gun but it's 'a genuine shock to see a revolver strapped to the hip of an officer'.
Presumably then it was the new (to you) imbalance of power that was shocking? (just to clarify).
Apologies, but "no one has the right to oppress another" sounds to me like something a mainstream politician might say. Whilst not wrong, it's too broad to be helpful.
Bill Thornton's approach to common law is the best I am aware of, incorporating well established principles of law, with a jury of the people as the ultimate arbiters of right/wrong. But my point was that 'common law' in this sense is simply not recognized at this time in the wider society and/or the legal system.
Sorry, but if you believe people should have weapons like this without training from any source and so would, for instance place one in the hands of a 12 year old and essentially say ' off you go then' I refuse to live next to you. Without a basic understanding of where a safety is and to think of what is around or behind what you are shooting at..... well I just cant be bothered explaining it further.
As for the minutia you seem to want to drill down to in every sentence I utter, I'm sure your trolling is giving you a grim satisfaction and a chuckle, but I will no longer give you that. I believe I have been more than clear in my stance, Disagree if you must and move on.
Just remember to vote for me at the next election!
I don't believe people should have weapons like this without training. I believe I cannot assign the 'right' to force others to accept my belief in 'relevant training' to license enforcers of some kind, because I don't have that right to assign. Do you?
I think your points are well intended. Where am I disagreeing with you? 'Drilling down' is simply attempting greater clarity which I hope we all find useful. Isn't that the purpose of a forum?
I don't think he is trolling so much as asking questions about things you are saying that are contradictory in nature.
Personally, I believe all people have the right to bare arms and defend themselves.
I also believe that any forced training would violate peoples rights.
Finally, I believe that if someone is stupid enough to carry around a weapon they are not competent with and injures someone else while doing so they should be fully accountable for their stupidity.
Simply boiling things down to rights (equal, inherent, and inalienable) and then holding people accountable for violating the rights of others would make the world a much better place.
Yes... most people are horribly dumbed down by government run schools... but the ideas of actual freedom are simple once the layers of statism are pulled away.
Most 12 year olds that carry guns are better (more responsible) with them than most police officers.
The ONLY people you see constantly pointing loaded fire arms at other people who have done nothing wrong are invading armies and police officers.
Every real gun owner knows that you DO NOT POINT A LOADED WEAPON at another human being unless it is life and death.
If anything happens (hair trigger, you get bumped into, etc.) the last thing you want is to kill someone that was not posing a threat to you.
You have a new follower, great write-up! Resteemed.
RESIST!
Well said. That's pretty much all they do...
Congratulations @larkenrose! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPI believe you're choosing the wrong responsable to blame but you're totally right about everything you say. Government as a type of political organization exists since Renaissance but every single type of organization before that went through similar corrumption. Civilizations are creating their own normes and punishes those who refuse to respect. We can also see that in various primitive ones and trust me their values sounds even crazier.
Social Contract written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1762 shows us that every single type of human collective does that compromise we call social convention to live in "harmony". So I think the question should be if today's society's values are really compatible with our legislation and the way it's applied.
Capitalism favors power gained from pecuniary interets and to preserve that for their own personal or oligarchic interests governments and their agents are becoming more and more oppressive. And it's indeed contradictory with it's own foundation because it's supposed to be most liberal and egalitarian way to acquire power.
But I also have to admit that it's scares the hell out of me to go out of this secure zone because governments might be oppressive but who knows what would happen if we didn't "compromise" with governments "oppression". Either way let’s hope liberal economy and it’s « laissez-passer » (let them do) philosophy will evolve into something better then pure chaos for humanity !
While reading every word of your article, I was nodding yes with a smile, translating into how damn true this is.
I am wondering if psychologists are making the link between a politician and a psychopath...
Amen! I thought this didn't even need to be said! The state is nothing more than a gang of thugs forcing us to pay them for living. Expect existance, or expect resistance!