There are zero rational justifications for the existence of a ruling class (“government”). So what the believers in the Divine Right of Politicians have, instead of logical arguments, is contorted retroactive excuses for why they still believe things that are patently ridiculous. And one common lame attempt to legitimize the presence of coercive parasitical ruling classes is the “social contract” theory, which basically states that by merely existing in a particular geographical area, you are “agreeing” to abide by the rules of whatever ruling class claims it as their domain. And if you don’t like it, you can just leave! (Or so say the broken-record statists.)
Demolishing that bit of statist mythology is quite easy. Observe: “I hereby declare all of North America to be mine. By being here, you are agreeing to be ruled by me. So either give me half your money, right now, or get out!”
Who would accept such a claim and such a demand as legitimate and righteous? I’m guessing no one … if I’m the one who made the claim. Everyone would recognize it as silly and invalid. However, if an equally absurd assertion was made by a bunch of long-since-dead wig-wearing political opportunists, suddenly most of the country views it as not only legitimate, but as sacred and profound. So the “Founding Fathers” sat down, said some stuff, wrote some stuff, did some rituals, and then magically had the right to coercively govern and control a million or so acres of land, the vast majority of which they had never even seen? Wow, that’s some powerful magic. (Or some utter bullshit.)
Viewing the U.S. Constitution as being at all like a “contract” makes exactly no sense. To state the obvious, a contract is a formal agreement between (at least) two parties. By definition, one cannot be contractually bound by a “contract” that he never agreed to, and in fact had nothing at all to do with. For example, I can’t just decide to sign a contract on your behalf, and pretend that that makes you obligated to do something. (For the most thorough annihilation of the notion that the Constitution was some sort of contract, read “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,” by Lysander Spooner.)
The idea that a bunch of people could make you be bound by a “contract” that you had absolutely nothing to do with is ludicrous. And equally silly is the notion that one party can decide what “counts” as the other party “agreeing.” “If you set foot anywhere between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, that counts as you agreeing to this!” No, it doesn’t.
(There also seem to be a number of people who get obsessed with “patriot mythology,” and cling to all manner of theories about how you “accidentally agreed” to be ruled, by getting a Social Security Number, or a driver’s license, or using Federal Reserve Notes, or calling yourself a “citizen,” etc. But no, you can’t “accidentally” become contractually bound by something that someone else arbitrarily declares “counts” as agreeing to something. If you doubt it, then I hereby declare that by wearing socks last week, you accidentally agreed to give me half your money. So hand it over!)
The arguments put forth by statists (and in particular constitutionalists) imply that somehow a small group of politicians, by mere decree, acquired legitimate ownership of half a continent, and so may now tell anyone in that geographical area what to do. Again, that is no more reasonable or valid than it would be for me to just unilaterally declare that I personally own North America, and that everyone here has to either obey me or leave. And if I decided to preface my lunatic decree with, “On behalf of the people, I hereby decide that North America belongs to me,” that wouldn’t make it any more valid. Or sane.
But now we get to the point where the constitutionalists really shoot themselves in the foot, without even noticing. The entire “social contract” mythology relies on the assumption that somehow, through various documents and rituals, the U.S. Congress made half of North America their rightful territorial jurisdiction—essentially their property—such that now they have the right to issue and enforce rules upon those who choose to reside in their domain. And if you don’t like it, you can get out! In fact, constitutionalists often come right out and compare the national jurisdiction to private property: “If you’re on my property, you have to follow my rules, or leave! The country is like our collective property, and our representatives decide the rules! So obey their laws or get out!”
But that is where their position completely implodes.
Allow me to explain. If I am in your living room, ultimate I have one right: the right to leave. That’s all. Whatever else you allow me to do is completely up to you. (To own something means to have the exclusive right to decide what is done with something, and if you own your house, that means you have the right to decide who can be there.) For example, while I think it would be silly and rude, you have every right to tell others that they may only enter your house if they wear huge purple top hats, and eat lots of moldy asparagus. The only real power you have is the power to make them leave, but because you have that right—the right to decide who can be there—that means you can make up any bizarre, daffy “rules” you want, and then others can decide if they want to be on your property enough that they will choose to follow your rules. (The only thing you can’t do is forcibly prevent them from leaving.)
So, for example, I have no unalienable right to carry a gun in your house, if you don’t want me to. I have no unalienable right to speak my mind in your house, if you don’t want me to. I have no unalienable right to do anything in your house, because I have no unalienable right to be there at all. Whether I am allowed in, and what I am allowed to do while there, is utterly and completely your choice. (Again, this is only because you can always tell me to leave if you don’t like what I’m doing, or not doing.) That is how private property works.
So what happens when we apply this to political jurisdictions? If, for example, Congress has rightful “authority” over this huge piece of dirt known as “The United States”—if it is their turf, and everyone here must either obey their “laws” or leave—then the notion of citizens having “unalienable rights” is out the window. Who the hell are you to tell someone else what requirements he can put upon you on his property? If living on this piece of dirt constitutes “agreeing” to abide by the “law of the land”—as the bogus “social contract” theory dictates—then you have exactly no rights, except the right to leave.
(As it happens, to make things a degree more ridiculous, the U.S. parasites don’t even just allow people to leave in peace. They can deny passports, demand back taxes you supposedly owe, or continue to rob (“tax”) you even after you leave.)
And by the way, if the magical, mystical (non-existent) “social contract” makes you beholden to the U.S. “law-makers,” then “your” house isn’t yours. It’s theirs. If they get to decide what you’re allowed to do in your “own” house, then by definition, it’s not your house. This is one more way in which proponents of the “social contract” theory manage to inadvertently but thoroughly disenfranchise themselves. Whatever intrusive or repressive crap your political masters want to impose upon you, you can either meekly obey, or you can get the hell out! That, according to you, is what you “agreed” to just by being here.
And if we are going to accept the “social contract” garbage, why would it only apply on this particular piece of dirt? I guess everyone in North Korea, by merely existing there, is “agreeing” to be oppressed, controlled, monitored, robbed, assaulted, etc. Right? Isn’t that how the “social contract” works? And yes, the constitution of the DPRK uses the same sort of bogus euphemisms and propaganda about “representing the people” that American politicians do.
If you actually believe in “social contract” theory, then stop complaining about what any “government” does to those who have chosen to stay within its jurisdiction, thereby agreeing (according to you) to be subjected to whatever arbitrary and oppressive crap the parasite class there wants to inflict upon them. After all, according to the excuses constantly parroted by constitution-worshipers, by happening to be born on that piece of dirt, those people consented to that arrangement.
Of course, they didn’t really. Of course, it’s not okay for them to be oppressed. Of course, robbing and terrorizing people, and saying they “agreed” to it by setting foot on a huge piece of a dirt that you just unilaterally declared to be your rightful domain, is bat-shit crazy.
And it’s just as bat-shit crazy when Americans do it.
(Larken Rose is a speaker, author and activist, having advocated the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership and a stateless, voluntary society for over twenty years. Donations to help support his articles, videos and other projects can be made by PayPal to "[email protected]" or by Bitcoin to 13xVLRidonzTHeJCUPZDaFH6dar3UTx5js.)
Let's see how these government sharks and bankers pump Ripple up and get the masses to subscribe to what is a shitcoin that can be printed at will and used to control the masses... yet again!
And everyone is buying XRP happilly.
I'd like to say, that I too see what you see in Ripple and have refrained for investing in it. I mean the POINT of getting into crypto-currency was being OUTSIDE of the centralized banking system. Just letting you know that you are not alone.
I recently looked into the Ripple white paper and was horrified by what I saw. It's a digital panopticon in the making.
Yes, I have to admit that I have to take the time to read the white papers of ICOs and alt-currencies. Unfortunately, a lot of us have been lazy on this very essential step in our research.
Great read and very well written. I agree with your main argument that merely existing in a place does not mean you are consenting to the rules of the coinciding government.
However, the fact is that there are really no inhabitable places on earth that you can move to where there is no ruling authority. Any power voids that open up are always filled by opportunists. The love it or leave it argument doesn't hold up but it doesn't change the fact that some kind of ruling authority will always exist. As long as humans have a propensity for violence and an ability to collaborate, force will be used to control others.
You said, "some kind of ruling authority will always exist." This is not true. The belief in "authority" is a LEARNED belief, and it can also be UNLEARNED. I know tens of thousands of people who have unlearned it already. Most of what I do is trying to more to unlearn it, as fast as possible. When the people stop believing there can be such thing as a rightful ruler, it won't matter what the sadistic control freaks want. When there is no throne to sit on, we don't have to worry about who will sit on it.
It's not a belief, it's a fact. Humans have the ability of coordinated violence. They ban together in self interest. You can unlearn as much as you want, it's not going to stop the police from throwing your ass in jail when you break some arbitrary law.
AnarchoVols unite... SOMEWHERE. How 'bout here?
pass it around.
Resteemed
For a few years between 2008 and 2013 I would spend weeks camping in the desert of Nevada and not see a soul. It was the freest I have ever been. But with freedom like that, comes great responsibility. You get in trouble, there is nobody to get you out. So while technically that was inside the borders, the practical reality is that the law was nothing more than a piece of paper out there. Anything could have happened and nobody would ever know.
Maybe instead of inhabitable I should have said inhabited. Only in complete isolation do you have that freedom. If you are there and no one is ruling over you, then you are the ruling authority.
The most fucking piece of brilliant writing I've come across on Steemit thus far. It encapsulates the way people are being manipulated out of land and money by the Beast. It's my pleasure to follow you, more of the same please! Peace.
I wonder if I am ever going to disagree with anything you have written about in regard to government. Awesome job Larken!
Educate yourself about the Common Law and Man-made rules.
https://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/common-law-vs-statutes/
Great post! I completely agree with your point.
I have been thinking a lot lately about how property ownership should be decided/handled. What voluntary mechanisms can we come up with that allow us to have property rights, but also solve problems such as, someone up-river from you dumping pollution in the water, or people polluting the air in general. Do they have the right to pollute our shared air even though it's being done on their property? What if your neighbor builds a waste treatment plant next to your house. It's his property but it also harms your property (you could argue whether or not it counts because it could be indirect but either way I wouldn't want that to happen). How can we balance our right to our property with the shared rights of water, air, sound, smell, sight, etc.
Also, how do we decide who "owns" the land in general. Originally it was just whoever claimed it first. It seems like we could come up with a better way...
I hope that makes sense and I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
I generally agree with what you're discussing, but I have some critique:
There's a lot of overly vitriolic content in this post. I would recommend toning down on that a bit. If I had to guess (since you've been writing about anarchy for 20+ years -- I only knew of this after I finished reading the article. As I was reading I figured you were a male from my generation or younger who was hyper anti-establishment) you're probably doing that because of America's general apathy, laziness, and subservience to the government's bureaucratic complacency, but to someone who doesn't know you it's coming off more like, "the government did something that really pissed me off and because of that I'm going to bitterly rage about it for the rest of my life". That's what I picked up as I read the article.
In terms of the arguments you put forth, I'm not sure they're exactly addressing the root of the issue. You are correct, nobody would consider it sane if you tried to stake a claim over the entirety of North America, and nobody would consider it sane if you pointed a gun at them and demanded half of their earnings. You also did not rally a group of influential individuals, organize a massive plan, and win a war against the largest empire on the planet with your massive balls of steel. Why would people submit to you in such a way? Why do people willingly submit to their government so? I know my answers to those questions. They're likely not far off from your own, but the absence of such questions in the article is what is urging me to write a detailed response.
The issue with the social contract from a political perspective is that it is indeed not a contract unless both parties are agreeing to initiate. The philosophical idea of the social contract shouldn't go any further than your example of inviting people to your home. People choose to enter your home of their own volition, and you choose to invite them. Obviously no contract is ever written, and things like trust are assumed without being spoken. If we had to openly discuss such nonsense with every person we wanted to invite to our house the discussion would never end.
I believe we tend to assume things like this (insofar as the social contract applies in the previously mentioned way to our social relationships and the like) in order to simplify them so that we can get on with life. In the same way I believe people choose to abide by the existing governmental structure because overthrowing and replacing it would be unimaginably difficult and painful. I'm not saying that is the right course of action -- in fact I would consider myself an Ancap as you seem to be. I suppose the heart of the issue I would like to see addressed more often by people is: what is the best way to spread this knowledge to people who don't want to hear it?
If you watched Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" back in y2k, at the outset, while a SC House member, and asked by his friends to vote "yay" on the levy to raise war funds and join other states in the effort, he asked outloud to the delegation: "Why should I give such sacrifice to sever ties with one tyrant 3,000 miles away, just to become subject to 3,000 tyrants, one mile away?" Probably THE most important line in the whole movie............
Found it.
I don't resteem often but dog gone it this is a WONDERFUL article. I so agree with what you wrote.
I’ve seen enough resteem by @dollarvigilante I think I’m following you anyway so I’ll just make it official. Happy new year, I appreciate your content.
"“accidentally agreed” to be ruled, by getting a Social Security Number, or a driver’s license, or using Federal Reserve Notes, or calling yourself a “citizen,” etc. But no, you can’t “accidentally” become contractually bound by something that someone else arbitrarily declares “counts” as agreeing to something. If you doubt it, then I hereby declare that by wearing socks last week, you accidentally agreed to give me half your money. So hand it over!)"
I know that it's great to first extract people from Statist mindset, but it would also be great to give details for opting-out.
If you have a bank account, while you could argue that it was not transparent and written in legal-ese, a language you cannot understand, and therefore not a valid agreement. It does bind you to the IRS statutes.
When people get passports, they do commit loyalty to the State.
A Drivers License is permission you asked for from the State.
I'm not agreeing that these things are honorable, just that it would be cool if you would delve deeper the details.
No, having a bank account does not "bind you to the IRS statutes." Having a bank account has exactly NOTHING to do with whether your income is taxable or not.
CORRECT. My company, a sole proprietorship aptly named The Gold Standard Press had an account(s) at FRN counterfeit stations. I have NEVER filed a 1040 in my life, nor will I ever. ...and the IRS contacted me in '90, and again in '01. Both times, after a succinct letter explaining that I do not believe I am under their US jurisdiction, and I never volunteered into their fold, thusly not liable for anything within their "Code", they promptly got back to me with a "Yes, Mr. Geshlider. You are correct. "have a nice day"..... Your new tax ID is 999-99-9999" I was all the rage of the patriot and libertarian movement in Vegas back then. wink Oh, and by the way, I closed my FR account back in Feb. '14. Now I only deal in Gold, Silver, Barter... and now Steem currency. Nice, huh? Oh... I think I can accept Bitcoin and Ethereum with a little help from a friend, as well.
this is exactly what i meant by saying people "choose" to be bound by specific contractual obligations in exchange for perceived "benefits".
The mere fact that people ask for permission to do something that is considered otherwise lawful says it all.
The act of asking for permission is an expression of an acceptance of some perceived authority and of an intent to be (or continue to be) submissive to that perceived authority.
"which basically states that by merely existing in a particular geographical area, you are “agreeing” to abide by the rules of whatever ruling class claims it as their domain"
The above is only partially correct (btw: I love your writings), they use two levels of control, the first being contract which entangles 99%+ of us, such as Banking agreement, Drivers License, Passport, and any thing else where we 'agree' to be a Citizen (Subject). For the handful left over, those who are stateless, TPTB exercise authority over anyone who has not formed a 'compact'.
In principle a great argument.
I would only caution that it is likely that there is a piece of reality that is being obscured in an argument that focuses exclusively on rights. "Justice, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Consent is a discussion between equals and anti-government types, I feel, lose the plot when it comes to discussions between the stronger and the weaker. We are not all equals and we will never be.
I'm not sure what your point is. Some people are stronger, therefore to hell with individual rights? Never mind consent, hooray for coercion, because of inequality?
I am not sure how much more simply I can put this - a discussion about rights can't even begin until the question of power imbalance is resolved. Who will make sure that your rights are recognized? If it is some minimalist state, can people elect not to participate in that state even if that state aspires to protect rights within a given territory?
A question about individual rights IS the discussion that matters. Ignoring that in the name of some collectivist (and authoritarian) solution to "inequality" has led to massive amounts of oppression, even mass murder.
I should clarify that the inequality I am referring to is the inequality of power - if no state exists and a mob of individuals agree to rob their neighbors, what will stop them? What is the 'gravity' that prevents evil, in dirtykarma's phraseology.
Our traditional methodology has been to vest a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in a centralized actor whom everyone must defer to - the state. Perhaps there is another way to achieve this result, I am open to one, but 'natural law' (assuming it even exists) isn't prepackaged with a method of enforcement.
Equal individuals could agree to follow a 'natural law' for their protection and best interests, but if one individual saw himself as capable of subjugating everyone else, why wouldn't he?
WITH the state, EVERYONE is GUARANTEED to get robbed by people with more power than them. If you want to reduce robbery, start by helping people escape the insane notion that "legal" robbery is okay. After that, normal people will have plenty of incentive to organize to defend against private thugs and thieves.
To be blunt, that one individual who saw himself capable of subjugating everyone else wouldn't, because the moment he tried, there would be several million people (including me) ready to put a bullet through him.
Ya. Maybe. Unless a group of people conspired and their opposition didn't group well or resist effectively.
I am with you that the state is robbing people, I just think we need to change the nature of the state, not abolish it. Is it predicated on violence? Yes. Why, though? Because, technically, the state could agree to be moderate in its violations of you in exchange for empowering it, whereas some new ruler might enslave you or rape your wife or something. There are far worse actors in this world than the US government.
Natural Law will make sure your rights are recognized, considering it is a Law of the universe/omniverse/multiverse that is always working and will always do so. No human or sentient being needs to recognize such. Does gravity ask that you allow it to pull you down to the massive object you are located on? No, because it is a law of the universe. Does fire ask you to allow it to burn you or otherwise not recognize its ability to do so? No, because it is a law of thermodynamics that you will be burned if you come into contact with something hot or on fire. Please listen to Mark Passio, all of his podcasts and presentations to gain a more valuable understanding/overstanding/innerstanding of these Laws of the Universe. Also, look into The Kybalion for more learning.
Still, there are adequate people in America. Great post!
Great article.
I would submit, though, that people do "choose" to be bound by specific contractual obligations in exchange for perceived "benefits".
I would further submit that this is learned behaviour that can be unlearned.
Once again, great article. Keep up the good work.
Nice share
The governaments are making fool for the people
Great topic one...Carry on my friend...Best of luck..
good education @larkenrose....
Best regards @fikrihaikal
I do not share your opinion, but your base and your knowledge is noticable. Keep doing things like this, it is the best for the political discussion!
I wonder which particular opinion you do not agree with.
amen. Do tell us where you believe you have attained some ordained authority to corral me and fleece me at your whim? ...you and some "majority" who flock to a voting booth? Bring it.
perfect post! l like it! @larkenrose!
I didn't agree to anything.
I bet you haven't agreed to fight them, either...................... That needs to be examined. This is the only thing which discourages me when I discuss things with AnarchoVols. The choice is always: Accept victimization with whining and complaining, or accept it with silence. Nahhhh. Gotta be a better idea. And there is. Learn about The Deputiz'm Plan, boys!!! Meet Andrew "petition" Jacobs.
I am fighting them. I work toward building &/or supporting systems that will render the state obsolete. Then, we'll ignore the state into obscurity. I won't beg for scraps from the would be masters table. Instead, I'll start my own party at my own table...thank you very much. As people see the good time we're having they'll begin to migrate away from the states party & join ours. Untill which time almost no one is left begging at the old table. Sure the powers that shouldn't be will reseist at some point & we must be prepaird for that but, it'll be short lived because there are many more of us than there are of them.
I am afraid you are not taking into account in your quotient, the "legal" counterfeit currency operation which engulfs the world... which buys what they want, who they want, when they want. So I would suggest you not put too many eggs into any "mindset" basket which requires the receivers of said currency will give it up. I am figuring at best, with a world population soon to be 8 billion, we'll be lucky to ever see 80 million "come aboard". So we need to figure out how to create fortresses. Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21
The argument is correct, except for reality, which is much much darker.
"We the People" (not you or I) those people that signed the constitution and their posterity own The US. The US owns all the property. Everyone on their property are considered as cattle found on their property. That is what the constitution says.
And it says, when you reach the age of majority, you could quit it.
The problem is that govern-cements have claimed all the land on this world, so there is no place to leave to.
So, will the people perish, or will the govern-cement?
Well articulated work. Thank you for expressing what I feel in words.
The main TPTB position for 'why' they exercise forcible rule over us is that "we are no better than beasts and would destroy ourselves, without them".
"So the “Founding Fathers” sat down, said some stuff, wrote some stuff, did some rituals, and then magically had the right to coercively govern and control a million or so acres of land, the vast majority of which they had never even seen? Wow, that’s some powerful magic. (Or some utter bullshit.)"
VIA International Treaties, Governments actually admit that Political Status and Territory are not in alignment, that instead that certain Nations holds 'Sway' over territorial areas, effectively based on Citizenship. If tomorrow, 350 million people were to swear an allegiance to a new Political Status, the Government known as 'The United States' would no longer control the land.
I was arguing with a statist who tried this argument on me. I will use this as reference for the next time I get into this topic. Thank you.
Thanks for this post @larkenrose! It's the idea of the "commons" that is supposed to protect us from some of this negative statist logic. But I'm afraid that is disappearing. Corporations are buying up everything and nearly everything will be privately owned.
In regard to so called "owning of land" how are we owners if we pay taxes on it? Are we not just "renting" from the government then?
I have heard of a legal trick that sovereigns use (statists mistakenly call them sovereign citizens) based upon the "legal name fraud" with the idea that the all caps version of your name is a corporation and not the living man. I know of one person who claims to have done this to get free in Canada (Mika otf Rasila). The reality is that he still got harassed daily for over a year before they finally left him alone. Then disappointingly he became a Trump supporter after saying that being free was just too hard and that he was thinking of leaving Canada for the USA. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
You said:
That was my social security number. I was a kid in the 60's when mom gave that card to me and at the time I felt something was very wrong with that number but I couldn't articulate it. Now I know that was the day my parents signed me away into slavery.
In any case, I think we are just a handful of years away from the 2nd American revolution. If Trump builds that wall at the Mexican border, it will become the Berlin Wall of the west. Soon, nobody is going to want to enter the USA. That wall will be meant to keep us in, not Mexicans out.
Larken, have you seen sovereignty internationals work here and on youtube? He gives courses on the DIFFERENT SCAMS by U.S. Gov!!!
The U.S. IS a Corporation just like federal express. Up vote coming with full power, resteemed. THANKS and peace.
Oh....and Earth is Flat, watch eric dubay and you WILL SEE it!! Happy New Year Brother!
Great post I agree with your argument
There are some missing pieces here that I hope to discuss with you in Mexico. The social contract is more than just a theory, and it is also completely not arbitrary and automatically in force or effect. We absolutely do enter into contract with the State and there are absolutely different classes of "citizen" starting with most that have zero rights as they granted them all away (a fundamental right of man) and ending with the ones who have full private property rights. The main problem is that WE have forgotten, combined with brainwashing and 'schooling' through multiple generations of public schools and successive wars and economic crashes, what our rights are and how to access them. I am NOT supporting the State and statism, I am simply suggesting that a BIG part of the problem is that we have forgotten law and how to use it to our advantage and 'reclaim' what was not taken away, but what was granted away through ignorance. I have witnessed this first hand.
Well said bro
Great topic! Thank you for sharing.
A few weeks ago I brought this question up on a message board, with some interesting responses indeed:
http://www.cheaprvliving.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=28437
Seems like a lot of folks prefer safety to liberty, which I just do not understand.
(((counterfeit currency))) purchases much... and these days, UNLIMITED quantities with nanoSecond transactions. 99.9999999% of humanity "has a price". It's easy for them to cage the rest of us, at present.
Deconstructed and debunked: Deconstructing Larken Rose's Deconstruction of Social Contract Theory
it's a fact of life.u r rite.
Larkin: What is missing from the complete convincing of Lauren Southern to make the final shift from minarchoLibertarianism to AnVol? Where is the crux objection? I heard she intends to be in Acapulco in Feb..... I assume she isn't coming there just to be a pain in the ass, eh? (insert Canadian accent. LOL)
I upvote your post
U my post upvote please