I am going to deconstruct some common misconceptions and phrases but I need to drill this point into your head or else you won't get it.
There is not such thing as authority.
Ok???
Gooood.
Keep that lense on for a minute. One day you'll get it and it will hit you so hard and many things will become crystal clear. But until that day comes, just try to keep up for meantime.
Anyways. Moving on.
Most people who are still under the indoctrinated belief of authority being legitimate and including those at the edge of figuring it out, like the rebels and fresh students of anarchists, still often mistake coercion, social conditioning, and institutional force for something called legitimate authority, but that thing itself does not exist. And it's not, because I say so that it is or that my vocabulary is above average, nor because I a am a smart and an ass sometimes, but because after carefully analysing with logic and rationality and the lack of evidence(non existent), there could be only one conclusion.
It doesn't exist. Never has and never will. Period. By no stretch of the imagination can it even be close to a possibility that it can. It is simply mathematically impossible as you will soon see for yourself.
Damn, did you hear a broken record on repeat or was it just me?
Hmm. Oh well. Must be that echolalia hitting me again or something.
Now to present to you some breakdowns of some common phrases and some psychology and philosophy to go with it. These are phrases that pretend to acknowledge that authority is fiction but yet still is framed from the premise that it exists.
“There’s no authority but you.”
Rather than question the very premise, the foundation, the root of it, it takes "authority" and simply relocates it to the self. It doesn't bring to the surface that it is not a legitimate phenomenon.
I am not dismissing self governance at all, only differentiating that it is not the same as having the right to rule.
For example.
I can rule myself yes. And you can rule yourself. But neither you nor me nor with the consent of someone else to be ruled, have a legitimate ownership over that individual, consent or not. This is because, to rule is to go against the will of the soul. It is anti-life. It deliberately places an natural born being into servitude even if it believes it is free.
The moment we govern another is to go against the soul. And a soul is not meant to be a slave. He is to be a free man or woman just like you and I. So even if we collect a hundred more people or even 100 million or billion people to vote to rule that one man, it does not grant us that right simply because we can govern ourselves. Because to govern ourselves is to be conscious and ethical. It is not the same as "authority" because nobody has it. Authority and the right to self governance are not the same thing. Authority is a superstition. Held only by the belief in it. And woe is to man for many of us have been dupped into believing it. I and I included.
So I am very aware of what I am saying to you all because I am also attacking and old belief system I once held close.
But maybe it will help you if you equated it to s number. Not 1+1 or 2+2 but zero.
We each have ZERO (0) authority.
So, no matter how many zeros we put together and add it, or do rain dances and write magic parchments, the result is the same throughout. Thus all those who still hold on to the belief can't comprehend that they are infact in belief that 0+0=1. How sad indeed.
Next slide please.
"Let The Experts Decide"
Yeah, let's.
Decide what?
What does "expert even mean here?
What do you mean by "Let"?
Do free men need permission to decide?
What's preventing them from making decisions that requires us to "let"?
In the blue-collar fields I would be listening as well and would let them as in, i will follow your guidance to the best of my ability so long as safety has been carefully placed and understood, but in the terms of "do it or else", yeah that's not something I personally would not "let" and even if simply because others or the majority do it, and even tries to make me feel ashamed of myself for not "letting" them, does not mean they had the right to command that of me. Nor would that command be legitimate.
Expertise may justify trust, guidance, or coordination, but knowledge alone does not magically create legitimate rulership over others. Many bosses at the work site may even get it into their heads that they can will people to do what they want. They may feel like they have the right to rule and may not even understand what they are feeling or doing in that sense, but it will and always will be, illegitimate.
A skilled engineer understands engines better than me, but that does not mean he owns me. The work is voluntary always until it is not. Then it's just tyranny if it crosses that line. Then I can just simply disobey. And if it needs to come to it, apply the right to defense, even if it means to have to kill. Hopefully that never comes to be, but simply because one may have to, does not mean authority is legitimate. Indeed, if your life is in danger by tyrannical forces, you have the right to defend your own, even if it means killing an armed intruder with an the devil's insignia ⭐ on his chest, breaking into your own home.
Next slide
“The majority voted for it.”
The majority vote. How could I forget. It feels like just 10 minutes ago I was writing about this very thing. Remember about it being mathematically impossible for authority to exist? Remember the formula?(0=0=0, zero authority plus zero equals zero authority)
The voting part is just the bizarre cult ritual(yes I said cult) that statist use to hallucinate themselves into believing that authority has been created out of thin air but I bet you they also simultaneously believe slavery is a crime and unjustifiable by all means. Yet, these statists have been practicing this ludicrous ritual where they hide behind a curtain and push a button or punch some papers to decide who of the preselected masters to be ruled under. And not only that, they believe that, even if you didn't vote for them or didn't vote at all for that matter, that you are under their rulership and must do what they say or be culled because that is what "democracy" is about. When in actuality it is simply just mob rule, but with a twist:
The mob themselves are zombies under the control of the umbrella corporation.
As harsh as that may sound, it is the accurate truth and description of what that is. And that's as soft as I can lay it out.
A group of individuals cannot collectively generate a moral right none of them possessed individually in the first place. 0+0 does NOT equal more than ZERO.
We may agree to cooperate but cooperation does not, can not, make authority a legitimate phenomenon by which to impose rules written by men unto others by force.
For force is the foundation of the "State" and all it does because that is all it's members has to keep itself afloat.
“Society needs authority.”
"Society needs government"
Often what people actually mean is:
“Society needs organization, consequences, coordination, and rules.”
Snd if it was just that and add in ethic principals I would agree but actually that is usually never the case because of their actions speaks louder than their words. Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.
They may say we need to be organized and fight against "the system" even, by means of protest and or running for some office or even "changing it from the inside", but none of these things will actually solve what they want. They don't even know what they want for that matter because they don't even understand what they are truly searching for. Most statists anyways.
They claim to be for freedom but still hold onto the beliefs that some form of government is still necessary. But even if they all feel a strong necessity to want government it won't ever make their legitimacy any more real. But they can certainly pretend to or hallucinate themselves to believe it.
The mathematical fact is not changed. Tou can't be again something that doesn't exist. What you call government is actually just a bunch of thugs claiming the right to rule and its power maintained by your belief in authority because otherwise they would have themselves binding into a pickle. For even if 30% of people were to disobey the rest would soon follow suit and literally ignore them out of existence.
Good luck waging wars now when no one shows up to do the bidding of politicians.
Society doesn't need authority. That is the same as saying society needs more slavery. It is just utterly ridiculous, illogical and absolutely insane to even put it into practice. But it's even more crazy that something that's so obviously and absolutely lunacy must be pointed out.
“Without authority there would be chaos.”
It is without a shred of doubt to anyone who studies history at all, that the majority causes of chaos and destruction and majority of deaths comes from those who call themselves "government" or even those kings and their armies and their loyal followers.
All the mass genocides and atrocious acts imposed upon a people in the name of government throughout all of human history has been the cause mostly because of that very superstitious belief we call authority.
The only thing this phrase assumes is that the only alternatives are to be under complete domination or collapse as a whole. It is a dangerous binary way of thinking.
As if human cooperation, ethics, incentives, culture, and voluntary organization play no role whatsoever.
“Parents have authority over children.”
Children our not our property. Not even to their parents.
Pa|rents have responsibility, experience, guidance, and temporary custodial roles. That is not necessarily the same thing as possessing inherent moral ownership over another human being.
Strangely I have nothing more to say about this point. The point has been quite clear throughout the entire post. No documents or strong feelings of any legal papers makes ownership over your own children any more real than Santa Claus or the tooth fairy being real.
Certainly we may say "my kid or my son and daughters" but that is only really stating that their vehicle in which their souls inhabit came to be created through your bodily resources that you kept in replenishment by eating the fruits of nature has to offer for us.
Your body is yours to have and control for yourself only. You may guide others to keep their body safe but you do not own it of someone else. Period.
“Laws are proof of authority.”
Laws maybe laws if they were written by something other than men, but the laws have already been written but not by man. It the laws of the universe that which truly governs us all and are 100% unbreakable as far we can tell. Despite that, what is called "laws" are not laws at all but commands backed by the threat of force if those arbitrary commands are disobeyed.
A written claim is not self-validating proof.
Maybe the strangest part of all this is how deeply these assumptions are embedded into language itself.
People often reconstruct the very concept they think they are rejecting without even noticing it.