To see the first debunking click here.
Myth #8: “You Agree to This By Living Here”
Disproof: The so-called “social contract” argument says that by merely living within the territorial jurisdiction of a certain ruling class, one has “agreed” to live by whatever rules those in power decide to call “law.” An actual contract is a specific and explicit mutual agreement. It is absurd to call it a “contract” when one side can arbitrarily decide what counts as the other side “agreeing” to abide by certain terms. To claim otherwise is to argue that it would be valid and correct for any street gang or Mafia to simply say, “By being in whatever area we claim as our turf, you agree to let us do whatever we want to you."
Yes and no. I feel as though this argument is spurious.
It's not an explicit agreement, yes. But with an awareness that certain territories are bound by centrally enforced laws, in deciding to live in such a territory there is a decision to be subject to these legal constraints.
An acceptance rather than an agreement if you prefer.
But I feel as though it's just a matter of nuance, rather than some underlying fallacy in the so-called Myth.
So perhaps it should be rephrased as: "You Decide to be Subject To Laws Here By Living Here"
Myth #9: “The Land of the Free”
Disproof: The place known as the United States is far less free today than it was even under the control of a monarch. The list of grievances against King George III spelled out in the Declaration of Independence are trivial compared to what is inflicted on the American people every day by their "own" government. The United States is not the most free country, economically or socially. Various detailed analysis of such things can easily be found online. More importantly, the equivalent of asking whose master is the least sadistic and domineering—which one whips his slaves the least, and doesn’t work them as hard—is not a measure of “freedom.” No slaves are free. Likewise, comparing the relative oppressiveness of various ruling classes is not a measure of freedom. There is no such thing as a “free country,” since the word “country” means the territorial jurisdiction under the control of a coercive ruling class.
Well, certainly not more "free" to influence political direction.
Representative government by definition weakens political centralization.
Anyways, the first part is just a collection of anecdotes. Just assertions followed by "look online".
In fact the evidence is so "easy" to find online it wasn't worth embedding one or two facts in the post.
Then he unloads a bunch of spurious sophistry.
You seem to regard everything in a master-slave context.
It's not a question of comparing the relative oppressiveness of various ruling classes, it's about comparing the degree to which the power to control who governs is conferred onto citizens.
I don't get your obsession with literalism.
A less free country is a country where citizens are less able to control who rules over them.
This argument is deliberately framed in a negative light.
Also you seem to have a problem with a "coercive ruling class".
What if this "coercive ruling class" were each of its inhabitants in a world where power were uniformly distributed?
More plausibly, what if a minority "coercive ruling class" were freely and voluntarily appointed by each individual citizen?
In both cases, do its citizens still lack freedom? Could this countries not be called "free"?
Myth #10: “We Are the Government”
Disproof: This claim is patently false on its face. It is the equivalent of a car-jacking victim saying “I am the car-jacker.” If one is really unable to distinguish between, on the one hand, himself, and on the other hand, the group of people who demand tribute and obedience from him under threat of force, such a person is quite literally delusional.
Representative government cannot credibly be compared to egoistic dictators or Monarchs who demand pledges of fealty.
If one is unable to distinguish between, on the one hand, being part of a selectorate who collectively elect representatives, and on the other hand, Cersei Lannister dictatorship, such a person is quite literally delusional.
Force is part of the governing rights we endow individuals with to provide them with wherewithal to govern.
I know you enjoy your political series, and they're admittedly rather popular, but perhaps you should consider reading my first rebuttal, though I suspect not only did you read it, but you agreed with my points.
Myth #11: “The Law of the Land”
Disproof: The literal reality is that what people are taught to view as “the law” does not come from “the will of the people,” or from “the land,” or from any other vague, abstract source. “Law”—meaning man-made legislation—is nothing more than official demands and commands, backed by the explicit threat of force, issued by the politicians who make up political bodies. The fact that others are allowed to petition, complain, and beg the politicians to enact different “laws” does not in any way mean that it is the people, or the “nation,” that are the source of such “laws.”
Indeed. I think your problem lies in a misunderstanding of representative government.
We delegate governing rights (including legislative influence) to groups of trusted individuals.
Complaining and petitioning in some sense defeats the purpose of delegative democracy.
What's your point?
Myth #12: “The Rule of Law”
Disproof: It is a common refrain to say that Americans are lucky to live under the “rule of law” rather than the “rule of men.” However, since all such “laws” are simply threats and demands written and issued by human beings, it is a distinction without a difference.
Without the negative framing and hyperbole, I would agree. Though the latter term really refers to a society without enforced law.
Myth #13: “Due Process”
The idea that one must be provided with “due process” before one can be deprived of one’s liberty or property (as stated in the Fifth Amendment) is empty and meaningless when the “laws,” the procedures, the bureaucracies, the enforcers and the courts that decide such things are all created and controlled by the same group that is depriving people of their liberty and property. This is no different than a street gang saying, “We have carefully reviewed our own actions and have determined that we had the right to steal your car, steal your wallet and beat you up; we were merely enforcing the law, and you have received due process.”
Is that group called the Bilderbergs?
I read about them in one of David Icke's novels.
You make baseless assertions as if they're observably true.
It really does appear as though you haven't quite grasped the multi-layered reality of the Separation of Powers.
Stay tuned for part three, because I'm sure there'll be more fallacies to debunk.
Myth #14: “Government”
Yes, the very concept of “government” itself is bogus mythology. It amounts to believing in the Divine Right of Politicians—the notion that various pseudo-religious documents and rituals, such as constitutions and elections, can bestow upon a group of mere mortals the right to forcibly rule everyone else. It is no more rational or legitimate than the old “Divine Right of Kings” concept; the modern version just uses more complicated and convoluted rhetoric and mythology—such as all of the examples addressed above—to make it sound legitimate, moral and necessary. But it is not, and that is quite easy to prove.
Government arises from human voluntary social organization - fact.
Why? Because there are no Gods on this Earth, nor are there intellectual Rambos that can rule the entire world alone.
No human has that power.
Influence arises from layers of symbiotic relationships, and mutual concessions.
There is no "right".
Politicians are appointed to do admin that others either do not want to do, or are not believed to be competent enough to do, by a sufficient group of influentials (e.g. majority of the voting electorate).
"Convoluted rhetoric and mythology" - No.
It's very simple: you elect representatives and endow them with governing rights - no fancy lore.
Compare with: God said I'm the boss.
Can you see the difference?
"That is quite easy to prove"- which is why you've abstained from the task...
Nearly all other terms connected to “government”—“law,” “regulation,” “crime,” “legality,” etc.—are equally artificial and illegitimate. In the next and final article in this three-part series, several independent logical proofs will be shown which each demonstrate that the idea of any political “authority”—the notion that any individual or group has the moral right to rule, and that everyone else therefore has a moral obligation to obey—is illogical to the point of being insane, as well as being inherently immoral and horrendously dangerous.
There is no way you are going to produce a logical proof with any hint of rigor, while invoking terms like "morality and "illegitimacy" as if they're self-defined.
So stay tuned for part three, because I expect a lot of "independent proofs" will be debunked.