As I specified, this series will be more about engaging with unique Anarchic posts, and exposing flaws - rather than a formal critique of specific Anarchic ideologies (which would not be trivial, given the plethora of Anarchic schools of thought and certain definitional concerns)
Note: I refuse to consider morality, because there can be no debate while a party can make appeals to arbitrary moral systems. In other words, to avoid sophistry and unnecessary lack of clarity. Not because I can't engage with your Anarchic arguments.
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.
The argument he appears to be making here is that certain actions from those in government are legitimized, where equivalent actions from civilians would be denigrated.
In a standard representative government, delegates are chosen to make decisions in the interests of the groups they're representing. The reason why humans elect to appoint delegates is to transfer the burden of societal organization to a set of trusted individuals. Necessarily, they also endow their delegates with wherewithal to enforce societal organization (for example legal exemption).
Now, everyone hasn't been appointed to represent certain groups, so would it make sense for everyone to have that same wherewithal to enforce societal organization?
Would this not defeat the purpose of representative government?
The right to boss you is just part of the wherewithal to enforce societal organization.
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.
Not necessarily mutually exclusive. People can voluntarily elect for an objective authoritative figure to enforce with coercion certain principles.
I agree, that some individuals may not have consented. But a sufficient group (generally a majority) did.
So, in general, Consent of the Governed is indeed appropriate.
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.
That make absolutely zero sense, unless this "gang" is forcing you to vote.
You may disagree with an established legal system and its implications, and you are free to migrate a country with one that you find more suitable.
No human society has existed, nor will it ever exist without some enforced principles, at least you can pick better enforcers or that which is to be enforced.
It's not about being free, it's about aligning political direction more closely with your interests.
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
I've already explained why this is wrong in Myth 1.
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.
This is true. But it's completely trivial because there is no system under which this would not be true.
If not a majority, then a sufficiently influential minority.
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.
This is way too reductionist. You're not seriously the reducing the result of complex political interactions to the nature of their political system.
If you could explain in theory why “Constitutional Republics are Good” that would fortify your argument.
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.
It is your servant if it is appointed by virtue of collective vote.
Government is an assembly of people, just like you and I.
Accordingly, they are appointed by you and I.