❌ Anarchy Exposed: Response to @larkenrose 's 'Political Mythology 101 (Part Three)'
Hello fans! I know you've been itching for another @larkenrose response, and - thanks to the Gods - he delivered yet another logically perforated piece!
Sit back, grab a bowl of popcorn, and make a hot cup of cocoa - this'll be fun!
The first two parts of this series addressed a number of patent falsehoods that people are taught concerning political power (i.e., “representative government,” “consent of the governed,” etc.). But in addition to exposing and refuting such aspects of political mythology one by one, there is a way to demolish the entire notion of civil “government,” and everything that goes along with it
This is absurd.
Let me rephrase: he made some baseless assertions, they didn't hold and I refuted them, so he made some more, but they didn't hold and I refuted them, he then claimed I was was making baseless assertions - another baseless assertion.
See, I pointed out his baseless assertions - "one by one" - here, here and here.
Whereas, His Anarchic Highness subjects himself to no burden of proof...
Bear in mind, @larkenrose said he would be producing "several independent logical proofs" - sorry kids, there will be no logical proofs.
All such discussions and bickerings depend upon a single concept: political “authority.” To be clear, the “authority” referred in this context—the type of “authority” that cannot actually exist—is the moral right to rule. The term “government” implies legitimacy. The difference between “government” and any other organized crime syndicate or street gang is that most of the victims of “government” coercion and extortion view their own victimization as “legal,” valid, and even necessary. The various myths addressed above are examples of the rhetoric and propaganda used to train subjects to view their own subjugation as proper and good, and to view disobedience to their victimizers as being “illegal,” “criminal,” and immoral.
We're not in Game of Thrones...
"Moral right to rule" - What world do you live in?
Representatives are elected because people entrust governing rights to them. Period.
"Legitimacy" in this context simply means they have been elected through popular vote.
People entrust governing rights to delegates, that includes the right to enforce governance...
Just to be clear, so that you don't confuse this with morality, "rights" in this context just mean the wherewithal to govern (legal exemption etc).
The sole point of representative document is to delegate governance to groups of trusted individuals, as such any coercion is within their rights (i.e. the task entrusted to them) if they believe it is conducive to governance.
Disobedience as in lack of adherence to a prevailing legal system (in this case enforced by representatives the bulk of citizens contribute in electing and empowering), is by definition illegal and criminal...
Below are several independent proofs that there is no such thing, has never been such thing, and can never be such thing, as legitimate political “authority.” These proofs are so simple and obvious that they are basically self-evident
We'll see about that.
1 - Delegating Powers
It is self-evident that people cannot delegate rights to others that none of those people had themselves in the first place. For example, ten people who do not have the moral right to murder and rob others cannot possibly give such a right to someone else.
Nope.
This is not a proof.
Ah! It's so self-evident that it can't be explained...
But it can logically be proven as completely nonsense.
First of all you're confounding governance rights conferred through delegation, and moral "rights".
Not the same thing. Governance rights means wherewithal endowed to delegates so that they can govern.
Generally some sort of legal exclusivity.
I repeat:
Why would you elect an individual to whom you will confer governance rights, if you already had governance rights yourself?
For individuals elected to govern to have no governing rights, defeats the purpose of representative government.
To coin your phrase, this is "self evident".
He then alludes to this non-existent belief in a “Divine Right of Politicians” and compares it to the historical belief in a “Divine Right of Kings”.
Which makes absolutely zero sense, given that in the latter case God was said to appoint kings, through a human conduit perhaps, and in the former case Politicians are elected through electoral delegation, and endowed governing rights so that they may govern.
2 - Altering Morality
For the “laws” of “government” to be valid logically requires that the legislative rituals conducted by mere mortals can actually alter morality. If “obeying the law” is inherently good and “breaking the law” is inherently bad, that means that the day some behavior or action is “outlawed,” morality has changed.
Wow, no.
Legal legitimacy is dictated by accordance with process that is agreed upon through delegative consensus.
If some behaviour is outlawed it means legal change has been agreed upon through delegative consensus.
It has absolutely nothing to do with morality, or "good" and "bad".
3 - Obligation to Obey
The right of “government” legislatures to rule logically implies the obligation of their subjects to obey. But whenever the commands of a supposed “authority” go against an individual’s own conscience and moral judgment, he is either obligated to “break the law” and disobey “authority” in order to do what he thinks is right, or he is morally obligated to obey and comply, even though it means doing something that he personally deems to be morally wrong. The latter option is entirely schizophrenic and irrational. To simply describe it accurately illustrates the inherent insanity of it: “if authority commands it, you should feel morally obligated to do what you think is morally wrong.” However one determines right and wrong, and however flawed an individual’s perceptions or moral judgment may be, it is logically absurd to say that he should feel a moral obligation to do what he thinks is morally wrong. And yet to feel beholden to any “government” or other external “authority” requires believing exactly that.
The problem here is just negative framing and unexplained assertions.
The "right" i.e. the governing "rights", conferred to groups of delegates to rule, implies a decision by the people who have elected them to to comply to the consensus agreed upon by the groups of representatives.
This obedience is voluntary.
It's not a master-slave situation.
People voluntarily elect delegates, to whom they entrust the rights to enforce legislation that they'll be subject to.
If your delegate acts against your conscience, it still doesn't change the fact that you entrusted to him the ability to make decisions as he/she sees fit.
It's not authority's command, it's the dictate of the contract.
You then assert that its logically absurd to feel a moral obligation to comply with this political contract.
This raises two questions:
- Why is it necessarily absurd that someone would value honoring a contract above morally distasteful corollaries of the contract?
- Can someone not view dishonoring a contract as morally wrong?
In conclusion, the debate over how big “government” should be, and exactly what it should do, is no more rational or useful than debating how magic flying unicorns should solve all the woes of human society. Making dire predictions about how horrible things would be if magic flying unicorns didn’t exist is also a pointless discussion. Hallucinations cannot solve real world problems. Political “authority” is not real. It never has been. And getting mankind to understand that, and to change its perceptions and actions accordingly, would drastically decrease the injustice and suffering in the world .
You have absolutely failed to discredit representative government. Because you have failed to logically outline its flaws.
Political authority isn't real - indeed.
What's your point?
What you call Political authority is a consensual delegation of tasks, and exclusive rights (not in a moral sense) conferred to the delegate so that he may perform these tasks.
That is real, and will always exist.
Unfortunately, this understanding will change nothing, because it's always been understood.
Thanks for the mild-fun.
Tearing down weak arguments was more enjoyable than I'd expected.
If you're pointing to representative government as a loophole in his description of "authority", you may want to explain why people are "represented" even if they didn't vote for the person elected, or if they didn't vote at all.
"If your delegate acts against your conscience, it still doesn't change the fact that you entrusted to him the ability to make decisions as he/she sees fit."
But I didn't entrust them. Someone else did. More accurately, the majority of voters entrusted them, which is typically a tiny fraction of their constituency.
More over, this isn't voluntary obedience. If you choose not to participate in the election process, you're still subject to obeying the decrees of the elected officials, or else you're punished.
"Delegative consensus" doesn't turn an immoral act into a moral one. If one person decides to steal from another, having 50 people agree that it's a good idea doesn't make it a moral act.
Not a loophole, it's because @larkenrose started off by uniquely criticizing representative government.
Though I did make it clear that a sufficient group of people elect a representative government to whom they confer wherewithal to govern. Of course, you are not represented if you didn't vote, under the current system. I would actually favour a different style of representative, not vote-based, but based on models which align representative's interests to unique group of people. That way this problem would be avoided.
Even under the current system, "authority" just means individuals to whom governing rights (not in a moral sense) are consensually conferred by a particular group of people. Since they're appointed to govern a land, yes they may rule over you. But it doesn't change the fact that it's a consent-based system, that would exist in any society where humans have the ability to exercise choice, because it's a pretty efficient system of governance.
On the voluntary obedience point. Yes, true. But this would almost certainly exist in any social organization, where a group of people have an incentive to enforce certain rules. At least in the present one you can influence the pooled government.
I could just as well say that breaking delegative consensus (effectively breaching a contract) is immoral.
Only 9% of America voted for EITHER Trump or Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0
That's a great graphic. It really puts things into perspective.
I would imagine that people are more in tune with presidential elections than, say, local or city elections. Ironically, the local elections most likely have far more impact on their day to day lives than the presidential one.
That being said, I would be willing to bet that a smaller percentage of people vote in their local elections as well. Meaning, that depending on the size of their community, the people elected to run the lives of everyone within their jurisdiction may be decided by a few hundred, or possibly even a few dozen people. Theoretically (and quite possibly), you could have a city of 100,000 people being governed by someone who was decided on by 1,000 voters*, or 1% of the population.
For people who consciously choose not to vote, for moral or ethical reasons, they're being forced into a system they don't want. Odds are, there's probably a larger percentage who don't vote out of convenience or lack of interest. Regardless, they're caught in a system they never chose as well.
Note: The mayor of my city was chosen by 1,737 votes. The population is near 140,000.
No man is fit to rule another man . Period . People who need government are lazy cowards . Period .
@satire - you did respond to me a couple of days ago on our other debate. Sorry I kind of forgot to respond as I've been jousting other windmills.
No problem mate
Not an argument.
lol
I enjoyed reading this, however the popcorn I made went horribly with the cup of cocoa.
haha!
This must be a troll post. The basic argument -- that you can't turn a wrong into a right by having someone else do it -- was never addressed, only ignored by changing the subject to "governing rights" (which literally just means anything the rulers say). It's like saying "I have the right to rule you because I said I did".