Jump to content


Photo

The Myth of Authority


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 PhilElliot

PhilElliot

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 1,526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • NCAA Team(s): Penn State
  • NFL Team: Rams

Posted 11 June 2018 - 04:44 AM

 plain and simple translations of truth and reality.

no, I dont agree with every single thing or example made..but most,yes

 


Edited by PhilElliot, 11 June 2018 - 04:57 AM.

  • 0

#2 PhilElliot

PhilElliot

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 1,526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • NCAA Team(s): Penn State
  • NFL Team: Rams

Posted 11 June 2018 - 04:56 AM

I know nothing about who is being quoted

 

No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else. That is simply not what ‘consent’ means. It defies logic to say, ‘I give my consent for you to be robbed.’ Yet that is the basis of the cult of ‘democracy’: the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority, That is not ‘consent of the governed’; it is forcible control of the governed, with the ‘consent’ of a third party.” – Larken Rose,Most Dangerous Superstition

 

True freedom and self-ownership is the simplest, most self-evident thing in the world. It’s so obvious that people have to be constantly trained to not see it. It’s the belief in authority that depends upon mental gymnastics, ignoring obvious contradictions, and engaging in ridiculously complex and convoluted rationalizations, to try to justify one group of people ruling another.” ― Larken Rose, The Iron Web

 

But all ʻlegal’ means is that the government told you to do it. The way people view law these days, whether something is ʻlegal’ or not depends only on who gave the order. If the people who call themselves ʻgovernment’ do it, it’s legal. If anyone else does, it’s not. But whether the order itself is good or evil, and whether anyone should obey it, has nothing to do with who gave the order.” ― Larken Rose, The Iron Web

 

The message here is not that we should try to create a world without "authority"; instead, the message is that it would behoove human beings to accept the fact that a world without "authority" is all that has ever existed, and that mankind would be far better off, and people would behave in a far more rational, moral and civilized manner, if that fact were widely understood.” ― Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition

 

In one sense, there is no positive, active solution to "government." The ultimate solution is negative and passive: Stop advocating aggression against your neighbors. Stop engaging in rituals that condone the initiation of violence and reinforce the notion that some people have the right to rule. Stop thinking and speaking and acting in ways that reinforce the myth that normal people should be, and must be, beholden to some master, and should obey such a master rather than follow their own consciences.” ― Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition

 

Pride in being a "law-abiding taxpayer" is not the result of having helped people, which the person could have done far more effectively on a voluntary basis; the pride comes from having faithfully obeyed the commands of a perceived "authority.” ― Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition

 

Frederick Douglass, a former slave, witnessed and described that exact phenomenon among his fellow slaves, many of whom were proud of how hard they worked for their masters and how faithfully they did as they were told. From their perspective, a runaway slave was a shameful thief, having "stolen" himself from the master.” ― Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition


  • 0

#3 seanbrock

seanbrock

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 15,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • NCAA Team(s): Penn State
  • NFL Team: Eagles

Posted 11 June 2018 - 07:08 AM

Ok, I'm commenting on this having not listened to the video you posted. I'm not going to say this is all bullshit because you have some good points but also some shit that I just massively disagree with.

First off, anyone who believes this country is a democracy is a fool. We have some of the lowest voter turnout in the developed world and most of the people in the country don't like Congress, don't like the preaident, nor do they like their state representatives. All of this is factual and very easy to find out by a simple Google search. The two biggest reasons why are the massive ammount of cash flow and the two party system.

As for your commentary about government just in general, you have your points but I think you ignore the benefits of civilization. What you're talking about is what people have been for the last majority of our existence. Tribes, or packs or whatever you want to call it. The problem is Pandora's box has already been opened for better AND for worse. We shouldn't be trying to go backwards. We should be trying to evolve and move forward.

We're getting to the point with technology where greed should be a thing of the past. We can provide food, shelter and all basic needs to live to everyone very easily AND educate them. Problem is an extremely small group of people have stolen almost all of production of our great societies. They're the ones who go to war and commit these acts of violence. For the most part people in Russia or China are just people. They don't want war.

Just imagine for a moment if everyone was fed, clothed and educated. Imagine there were no boarders. Imagine the world we could live in, what we could achieve. We don't do any of that by running on the same hamster wheel but we don't do it by going backwards either.

If the US, UK, Russia, China, etc stopped putting money and resources into killing each other they could make it there is no 3rd world countries very easily. We could make sure all basic needs to sustain life are met for every person in the world several times over. There is an opportunity cost to having so many have so little. Who the hell knows what we could accomplish if all knowledge was free and resources were shared?

Edited by seanbrock, 11 June 2018 - 07:22 AM.

  • 0

#4 OSUViking

OSUViking

    The Future Is Now.

  • Members
  • 3,589 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • NCAA Team(s): Minnesota, Ohio State
  • NFL Team: Vikings

Posted 11 June 2018 - 09:30 AM

Don't think we'll ever reach a point with no borders. I see people make claims about that all the time, and I'm skeptical. I could see a surge in technology drastically reducing resource (like food, shelter, water, etc) shortages so that less people go without them, but at the end of the day I don't think that humans would mesh well with borders. 

 

Maybe if those resources are abundant, there's no need for similarly-cultured groups to organize into nation states, but IDK. I'm sure you can tell my opinion of people isn't very high, so I think that doing away with borders would just exacerbate the cultural friction that already exists between many nations. 


  • 0

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

 

Posted Image
^Props to BK^





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users