Political Mythology 101 (Part One)
Below are just some of the things we were taught to believe in and repeat which are part of the widely accepted mythology relating to politics and government, together with explanations of why such concepts and terms are inherently bogus and inaccurate.
Myth #1: “Representative Government”
Disproof: Someone who actually represents you—who acts on your behalf—would only have the right to do things which you have the right to do yourself. Those in "government" pretend to have the right to do countless things that you yourself have no right to do, while (bizarrely) claiming that you gave them that right. Also, one who actually represented you obviously would not have the right to boss you around and demand money from you under threat of caging you if you disobey or resist—a right those in power claim to have.
Myth #2: “Consent of the Governed”
Disproof: To “consent” means to voluntarily agree to something. To “govern” means to coercively control. The two are mutually exclusive. The term “consent of the governed” therefore makes no more sense than “voluntary slave.” Additionally, someone else obviously cannot “consent” on your behalf for you to be enslaved. If you didn’t individually, specifically and freely agree to something yourself, that is not consent.
Myth #3: “Voting Constitutes Consent”
Disproof: Being given the choice of which individual or gang will forcibly extort and dominate you (with "none of the above" not being an option) does not mean that you are free, and does not mean that you agreed to be robbed and controlled.
Myth #4: “We Gave Them Their Power”
Disproof: There is no ritual or document through which any number of people can delegate to others rights that none of them had to begin with. For example, ten people who have no right to commit murder cannot give to someone else the right to commit murder. Therefore, if those in power have rights that you don’t, they obviously didn’t get such rights from you.
Myth #5: “Democracy is Freedom”
Disproof: Gang rape is democracy in action—a majority forcing its will on a minority. Even if political elections actually represented the will of the majority (which they don’t), democracy would be inherently violent, immoral and illegitimate. Political voting is always about a majority forcing its will on a minority. Even if theoretically that left the majority in freedom (which it never actually does), obviously the minority would not be free.
Myth #6: “Constitutional Republics are Good”
Disproof: The Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, and the Weimar Republic (which gave rise to Nazi Germany) are/were all democratically-elected constitutional republics, each with its own version of a “bill of rights.” (The constitutions of all of them are easy to find online.) Democratically-elected constitutional republics have been the most destructive, murderous institutions in the history of the world.
Myth #7: “Servant Government”
Disproof: If there is a group of people that tells you what to do, demands money from you, and hurts you if you do not comply—and that is always what "government" is and does—then it is not your servant; it is your master.
- ( stay tuned for part two ) * * *
And then the new government they started quickly became more oppressive than the one they revolted against. Example: They revolted against %2.5 tax on exported tea. The new government imposed %25 tax on whisky (that is locally produced and sold)...
And both taxes were to pay for war debts, yes?
Yes, and look how that turned out.
Using violence to impose your will simply justifies the further use of violence. All of this is just an exercise in "Might makes right," with some empty platitudes thrown in during mandatory, state-run miseducation.
Hopefully, we can solve the problem of government peacefully so that what we build afterwards will also be peaceful.
Using violence to get rid of the king(s)/law enforcers really wasn't the problem. It was later when they decided to create a ruling class out of thin air, then bestow upon themselves the right to rule.
It's the fundamental problem with revolution, and why it doesn't and can't work. You had a bunch of guys that just killed a lot of people. Granted they (redcoats) mostly deserved killing, although they would have claimed "I'm just following orders!" No group of humans who EVER killed a bunch of people to get control didn't take control. Oh yeah they wrote some stuff that they allowed themselves to do to everyone else, and then wrote some other stuff they strongly hinted they would never do, and promptly did things they were not allowed (Whiskey Tax), and did things they promised not to do (Alien and sedition act). These were the SAME GUYS. Some of them had good intentions (Jefferson), and some had ridiculously bad intentions (Hamilton, America's first literal evil genius) but to a man they were all corrupted, and not in due time. Almost instantly.
The system we have now doesn't even let possibly good people in to have the chance to be corrupted. You have to be corrupt to get in the door. But even if good people could get power, they would become the bad guys. That's the lesson of Gandalf and RL modern incarnation Ron Paul. The only one who can be trusted with power is the one who doesn't want it and SUCCEEDS at never getting it. If he gets it he can't be trusted.
This is why we need competing institutions. Law is a good thing, but monopoly law is very bad. Monopoly anything is very bad.
If we can be free it will be by evolution, not revolution. When you revolve you end up at the same place every time. It has to be done by a critical mass of people understanding no one owns them. The bad guys will stop this by any means. But if it can happen at all it has to happen peacefully, in most part. The state will go completely feral if people stop believing in it, and will attack people. When it's clearly and unambiguously understood by society to be self defense, we may use force, and may have to. Until they they will murder a lot of people.
@faithkills revolution just means restarting the same problem over again, like a giant wheel .i was just starting on a new blog about why a revolution will fail and ways to make it real change possible.
@magnaniman I never said use violence just force sorry that your mind went straight to violence.
These look like Mark Passio's definitions. Except for the first one for "force", they are all bogus. Violence is irrelevant; aggression (initiation of force) is what makes an action immoral.
This is mark passio definitions and there is no such thing as initiation of force , force is self-defense therefor a reaction to violence.
While I sort of understand the point your trying to make, you're redefining words to make it. With no offense intended, I reject your definitions.
Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Shooting people is violence, no matter how justified it may be. To be clear, I do differentiate between aggressive violence and defensive violence. However, I still assert that it's of the utmost importance that we try to create the world we want without violence.
@magnamiman the only thing that matters is that we both want a better peaceful world & as along as your also anti-slavery then we can get along just fine.
Who makes the laws?
"Lawmakers."
What gives them the right to make the laws?
"Because the majority voted for them to make the laws."
Why doesn't the majority just make the laws?
"Because they're not smart enough to make the laws."
Then what makes them smart enough to pick someone smart enough to make the laws?
"Why don't you just move to Somalia?"
Why don't you just answer the question?
And that my friends is why I trust in decentralisation. We don't need governments
Nice essay. I hate politics as well. they promise more they practice. Everyone is corrupt in politics. No one is good to represent us, they seek for money. THANKS FOR SHARING
They seek for power.
Power for power, nothing else.
Lie? Violence? Corruptions? Why not?
All methods are welcome.
The first question in politics
is not "What good we can do to each other?"
it is "What evil we can do to each other?"
And if someone could not protect from evil by evil, he becomes slave of more powerful politics.
Law of jungle. Someone bigger eats someone smaller.
@larkenrose My response to this: https://steemit.com/anarchism/@satire/anarchy-exposed-response-to-larkenrose-s-political-mythology-101-part-one
I'll probably be accused of being a troll. But hopefully intellectually honest users will not accuse me so unfairly.
I don't really see ANY trolls yet in this community. The reputation system and the chance to earn seem to keep things pretty civil. Though @larkenrose has been fighting this battle in much harsher places for a long time so he may not yet have acclimatized to the fact that people are not trolling him here. It takes a bit to realize we have a pretty unique community here. :) So if he comes at you guns blazing, that'd be likely because that is usually what he needs to do.
i dont like politics
You know that when the our current Constitution was being considered, the so-called "anti-federalists" warned that it would never work. They said, "Yeah, it's nice that the Constitution contains safeguards against tyranny, but where's the enforcement mechanism?"
It's scary and spooky to read the "Anti-Federalist Papers", because every bad thing that they predicted would happen if the Constitution were adopted has, in fact, come to pass.
Anti-Federalist still wanted government, on the state/commenwealth level. They just wanted a government close to them and easier to control. Just remember that the Anti-Federalist were an exclusive club who had their own interest at heart, just like democratic-republican party from the time period. They were all rich, white, landowning, male and slave owners. Anti-Federalist were in fact the ones who pushed to keep slavery at every chance.
This is true. But at least, they saw the danger of adopting the Constitution with its new, stronger federal government.
Well let's be clear federalists were also rich, white, landowning, male slave owners. Slave owning was par. The debate was to give a centralized political class all the power, and the army to enforce it, or keep it decentralized. Clearly the anti-federalists were correct as we see today. And a point on slavery, if not for the illegal secession from the (first) Confederacy, there would have needed to be no mass slaughter to end slavery in the US. Slavery was for commercial purposes was ending due to inevitable economic inefficiency, and State members of the Articles of Confederation would have done it piecemeal (or peacemeal) and much sooner.
And if words on paper have force, the Articles had actual verbiage denying secession. The Constitution was thus illegal, by the very logic of Lincoln apologists. The Constitution gives no authority to the President to oppose secession, much less start a war without Congress' approval, which he did. But if one likes to believe secession was illegal somehow then the Constitution itself was an illegal document of secession from the Articles. And then of course so to was the Declaration illegal in overturning the King's edicts.
Regardless no piece of paper can legitimately deny anyone the right to free association and disassociation, unless the person to be bound signs it under no duress. So all of it was just a bunch of people writing themselves the power to own people. In perpetuity, through blood and land, until your children's children, ye shall all be the property of Washington DC.
Anyway smaller and closer means harder to control by people who want to control it all, which was exactly what. the bad guys like Hamilton and Adams wanted.
If one pretends to value democracy, and 'good government', then in all ways and all cases smaller is better. Yeah the rich guy on the corner may have more pull on the city council, but at least you can get to him and the city council. The inevitable corruption (because that's what government is) is at least harder to hide, and thus, much less. Because the power is much less there is less to sell to monied interests. If DC couldn't tax or subsidize, there would be no lobbyists. But of course prostitutes are there to be bought, and make sure they always have something to sell.
Here's to hoping the "social contract" and "we are the government" are in part two. As always @larkenrose, excellent job!
They will be. :)
Social contract summed up
What is that a passage from?
Okay yeah sure but what about muh roads?
Thanks Larken,
I have read your posts for several years now. Basic question is how do we get along with just voluntarism? Who adjudicates? What society in the past has successfully operated this way?
look into xeer in somalia, and brehon law in ireland. voluntary, polycentric systems of dispute resolution.