A growing number of people now believe that “government” is not necessary and that human society would, on a practical level, work a lot better without it. Others argue that regardless of which “works” better, society without a coercive state is the only moral choice, as it is the only choice that does not support the initiation of violence against innocent people. While such arguments are both valid and worthwhile, there is actually a more fundamental point that renders such discussions moot: “authority, ,. whether moral or not, and whether it “works” or not, cannot exist. This is not merely a statement of whatshould be, it is a description of what is. If “authority” cannot exist – as will be logically proven below – any debate about whether we “need” it, or how well it works on a practical level, is pointless.

Accordingly, the point of this book is not that “government” should be abolished, but that “government”– a legitimate ruling class – does not and cannot exist, and that failure to recognize this fact has led to immeasurable suffering and injustice. Even most of those who recognize “government” as a huge threat to humanity speak of doing away with it, as if it actually exists. They speak as if there is a choice between having a “government” and not having a “government.” There is not. “Government” is a logical impossibility. The problem is not actually “government,” but the belief in “government.” By analogy, one who realizes that Santa Claus is not real does not start a crusade to abolish Santa, or to evict him from the North Pole. He Simply stops believing in him. The difference is that the belief in Santa Claus does little harm, while the belief in the mythical beast called “authority” has led to unimaginable pain and suffering, oppression and injustice.

The message here is not that we should try to create a world without “authority”; it 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.

Before demonstrating that “authority” cannot exist, brief mention should be made of why anyone would want such a thing to exist. It is obvious why those who seek dominion over others want “government” to exist: it gives them an easy, allegedly legitimate mechanism through which they can forcibly control others. But why would anyone else – why would those being controlled – want it to exist? The mindset of statists usually starts with a reasonable concern, but ends with an insane “solution.” The average person who looks out at the world, knowing there arE billions of human beings out there, many of whom are stupid or hostile, naturally wants some sort of assurance that he will be protected from all the negligent and malicious things others may do. Most believers in “government” openly describe that as the reason “government” is needed: because people cannot be trusted, because it is in man’s nature to steal, fight, etc.

Statists often assert that without a controlling authority, without “government” making and enforcing the rules of society on everyone, every dispute would end in bloodshed, there would be little or no cooperation, trade would all but cease, it would be “every man for himself,” and humanity would degrade into a caveman or “Mad Max” type of existence.

As a result, the debate between statism and anarchism is often incorrectly assumed to be a question of whether people are inherently good and trustworthy, and therefore need no controllers, or are inherently bad and untrustworthy, and therefore need “government” to control them. In truth, whether human beings are all good, all bad, or something in between, the belief in “authority” is still an irrational superstition, But the most popular excuse for “government”– that people are bad and need to be controlled – inadvertently exposes the lunacy inherent in all statism.

To wit, if human beings are so careless, stupid and malicious that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own, how would the situation be improved by taking a subset of those very same careless, stupid and malicious human beings and giving them societal permission to forcibly control all the others? Why would anyone think that rearranging and reorganizing a group of dangerous beasts would make them civilized? The answer hints at the mythological nature of the belief in “authority.” It is not merely a different arrangement of human beings that authoritarians seek, but the involvement of some superhuman entity, with rights that human beings do not have, and with virtues that human beings do not have, which can be used to keep all the untrustworthy humans in line. To say that human beings are so flawed that they need to be controlled – a common refrain among statists – implies that something other than human beings needs to do the controlling. But no matter how hard you study “government,” you will find that it is always run entirely by people. Saying that “government” is necessary because people are untrustworthy is as irrational as saying that if someone is being attacked by a swarm of bees, the solution is to create an authoritarian hierarchy among the bees, assigning some of the bees the duty of preventing the other bees from doing harm, However dangerous the bees may be, such a “solution” is ridiculous.

What the believers really want out of “government” is a huge, unstoppable power that will be used for good. But there is no magic trick, political or otherwise, capable of guaranteeing that justice will occur, that the “good guys” will win or that the innocent will be protected and cared for. The giant, superhuman, magical savior that statists insist is needed to save humanity from itself does not exist. On this planet, at least, human beings are the top – there is nothing above them to control them and make them behave properly, and hallucinating such a superhuman entity does not make it real, nor does it help the situation.

“Government” is neither a scientific concept nor a rational sociological construct; nor is it a logical, practical method of human organization and cooperation. The belief in “government” is not based on reason; it is based on faith, In truth, the belief in “government” is a religion, made up of a set of dogmatic teachings, irrational doctrines which fly in the face of both evidence and logic, and which are methodically memorized and repeated by the faithful. Like other religions, the gospel of “government” describes a superhuman, supernatural entity, above mere mortals, which issues commandments to the peasantry, for whom unquestioning obedience is a moral imperative, Disobeying to the commandments (“breaking the law”) is viewed as a sin, and the faithful delight in the punishment of the infidels and sinners (“qw21criminals”), while at the same time taking great pride in their own loyalty and humble subservience to their god (as “law-abiding taxpayers”). And while the mortals may humbly beg their lord for favors, and for permission to do certain things, it is considered blasphemous and outrageous for one of the lowly peasants to imagine himself to be fit to decide which of the “government” god’s “laws” he should follow and which it is okay for him to ignore. Their mantra is, “You can work to try to change the law, but as long as it’s the law, we all have to follow it!” The religious nature of the belief in “authority” is put on display for all to see whenever people solemnly stand, with their hands upon their hearts, and religiously proclaim their undying faith in, and loyalty to, a flag and a “government” (the “republic”). It rarely occurs to those who recite the Pledge of Allegiance, while feeling deep pride, that what they are actually doing is swearing allegiance to a system of subjugation and authoritarian control. In short, they are promising to do as they are told, and behave as loyal subjects to their masters. Aside from the patently inaccurate phrase at the end about “liberty and justice for ail,” the entire Pledge is about subservience to the “government” which claims to represent the collective, as if that in itself is some great and noble goal, The Pledge, and the mentality and emotions it is intended to stir up, would apply equally well to any tyrannical regime in history. It is a promise to be obedient and easily controlled, to subordinate oneself to “the republic,” rather than a promise to do the right thing, Many other patriotic rituals and songs, as well as the overtly religious reverence given to two pieces of parchment – the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution – also demonstrate that people do not merely view “government” as a practical necessity: they view it as a god, to be praised and worshiped, honored and obeyed.

The main factor distinguishing the belief in “government” from other religions today is that people actually believe in the god called “government,” The other gods people claim to believe in, and the churches they attend, are now, by comparison, little more than empty rituals and half-heartedly parroted superstitions. When it comes to their everyday lives, the god that people actually pray to, to save them from misfortune, to smite their enemies, and to shower them with blessings, is “government.” It is “government” whose commandments the people most often respect and obey, Whenever a conflict arises between “government” and the teachings of the lesser gods – such as “pay your fair share” (taxation) versus “Thou shalt not steal,” or “duty to country” (military service) versus “Thou shalt not murder”– the commands of “government” supersede all the teachings of the other religions. Politicians, the high priests of the church of “government”– the mouthpieces and representatives of “government,” who deliver the sacred “law” from on high – even openly declare that it is permissible for the people to practice whatever religion they wish, as long as they do not run afoul of the supreme religion by disobeying “the law”– meaning the dictates of the god called “government.” Perhaps most telling is that if you suggest to the average person that maybe God does not exist, he will likely respond with less emotion and hostility than if you bring up the idea of life without “government.” This indicates which religion people are more deeply emotionally attached to, and which religion they actually believe in more firmly. In fact, they believe so deeply in “government” that they do not even recognize it as being a belief at all. The reason so many people respond to the idea of a stateless society (”anarchy”) with insults, apocalyptic predictions and emotional tantrums, rather than with calm reasoning, is because their belief in “government” is not the result of careful, rational consideration of evidence and logic. It is, in every way, a religious faith, believed only because of prolonged indoctrination. And there is almost nothing which stateworshipers find more existentially terrifying than contemplating the possibility that “government” – their savior and protector, teacher and master – does not actually exist, and never did.

Many political rituals have overtly religious overtones to them. The grandiose, cathedrallike buildings, the pomp and circumstance at inaugurations and other “government” ceremonies, the traditional costumes and age-old rituals, the way the members of the ruling class are treated and described (e.g., “honorable”), all give such proceedings an air of holiness and reverence, far more indicative of religious rites than of a practical means of collective organization.

It might be nice to have some morally superior, all-powerful deity to protect the innocent and to prevent injustice. And that is what statists hope “government” will be: a wise, unbiased, all-knowing and all-powerful “final decider” that will override and supersede the flawed, shortsighted and selfish whims of man, unerringly dispensing justice and fairness. However, there is no such thing, and can be no such thing, and there are many reasons why it is utterly foolish to look to “government” as the solution to human imperfection. For example, what almost every statist wants is for “government” to enforce objective rules of civilized behavior, More specifically each individual wants hisown perception of justice and morality to be enforced by “authority,” while failing to realize that the moment there is an “authority,” it is no longer up to that individual to decide what counts as moral or just – the “authority” will claim the right to do that for him. And so, over and over again, believers in “authority” have tried to create an allpowerful force for good by anointing some people as rulers, only to quickly learn that once the master is on the throne, he does not care what his slaves were hoping he would do with the power they gave him.

And this has happened to all kinds of statists, with very different beliefs and agendas.

Socialists assert that “government” is needed to “fairly” redistribute wealth; Objectivists assert that “government” is needed to protect individual rights; Constitutionalists assert that a “government” is needed to carry out only those tasks listed in the Constitution; believers in democracy assert that “government” is needed to carry out the will of the majority; many Christians assert that “government” is needed to enforce God’s laws; and so on. And in every case the people end up disappointed, because the “authority” always changes the plan in order to serve the interests of the people in power. Once a set of rulers are “in charge,” what the masses had intended for them to do with their power does not matter. This fact has been demonstrated by every “government” in history, Once the people create a master, tie people, by definition, are no longer in charge.

To expect otherwise, even without all of the historical examples, is absurd. To expert the master to serve the slave – to expect power to be used solely for the benefit of the one being controlled, not the one in control – is ridiculous. What makes it even more insane is that statists claim that appointing rulers is the only way to overcome the imperfections and untrustworthiness of man. Statists look out at a world full of strangers who have questionable motives and dubious morality, and they are afraid of what some of those people might do. That, in and of itself, is a perfectly reasonable concern. But then, as protection against what some of those people might do, the statists advocate giving some

of those same people of questionable virtue a huge amount of power, and societal permission to rule over everyone else, in the vain hope that, by some miracle, those people will happen to decide to use their newfound power only for good. In other words, the statist looks at his fellow man and thinks, “I do not trust you to be my neighbor, but I do trust you to be my master.” Bizarrely, almost every statist admits that politicians are more dishonest, corrupt, conniving and selfish than most people, but still insists that civilization can exist only if those particularly untrustworthy people are given both the power and the right to forcibly control everyone else. Believers in “government” truly believe that the only thing that can keep them safe from the flaws of human nature is taking some of those flawed humans – some of the most flawed, in fact – and appointing them as gods, with the right to dominate all of mankind, in the absurd hope that, if given such tremendous power, such people will use it only for good, And the fact that that has never happened in the history of the world does not stop statists from insisting that it “needs” to happen to ensure peaceful civilization.

 (Author’s personal note; I say all of this as a former devout statist, who for most of my life not only accepted the self-contradictions and delusional rationalizations underlying the myth of “government,” but vehemently spread the mythology myself. I did not escape my own authoritarian indoctrination quickly or comfortably, but let go of the superstition slowly and reluctantly, with much intellectual “kicking and screaming” along the way. I mention this only so that it may be understood that when I refer to the belief in “authority” as utterly irrational and insane, I am attacking my own prior beliefs as much as anyone else’s.)

Another way to look at it is that statists worry that different people have different beliefs, different viewpoints, different standards of morality. They express concerns such as “What if there is no government and someone thinks it’s okay to kill me and steal my stuff?” Yes, if there are conflicting views – as there always have been and always will be – they can lead to conflict, The authoritarian “solution” is that, instead of everyone deciding for himself what is right and what he should do, there should be a central “authority” that will make one set of rules that will be enforced on everyone. Statists obviously hope that the “authority” will issue and enforce the right rules, but they never explain how or why this would happen. Since the edicts of “government” are written by mere human beings – usually exceptionally power-hungry, corrupt human beings – why should anyone expect their “rules” to be better than the “rules” each individual would choose for himself? The belief in “government” does not make everyone agree; it only creates an opportunity to drastically escalate personal disagreements into large-scale wars and mass oppression.

Nor does having an “authority” settling a dispute do anything to guarantee that the “right” side wins. Yet statists talk as if “government” will be fair, reasonable, and rational in situations where individuals would not be. Again, this demonstrates that believers in “government” imagine “authority” to have superhuman virtues that should be trusted above the virtues of mere mortals. History shows otherwise, A twisted sense of morality in one person, or a few, can result in the murder of one person, or even dozens, but that same twisted sense of morality in just a few people, when they get hold of the machine called “government,” can result in the murder of millions. The statist wants his idea of the “good rules” forced on everyone by a central “authority,” but has no way to make that happen and no reason to expect that it will happen. In their search for an all-powerful “good guy” to save the day, statists always end up creating all-powerful bad guys. Over and over again, they build giant, unstoppable “government” monsters in the hope that they will defend the innocent, only to find that the monsters become a far greater threat to the innocent than the threats they were created to protect against.

Ironically, what statists actually advocate in their attempts to guarantee jus ice for all is the legitimization of evil. The truth is that all the belief in “authority” ever does, and all it ever can do, is to introduce more immoral violence into society. This is not an unfortunate coincidence, or the side effect of a basically good idea. It is a truism based upon the nature of the belief in “authority,” and this is easy to logically prove.

Almost everyone agrees that sometimes physical force is justified, and sometimes it is not. Though there is a large, debatable gray area, it is generally accepted that aggressive

force – the initiation of violence against another person – is unjustified and immoral. This would include theft, assault and murder, as well as more indirect forms of aggression such as vandalism and fraud. On the other hand, using force in defense of the innocent is widely accepted as justified and moral, even noble. The legitimacy of such force is determined by the situation it is used in, not by who is using it. To simplify, the types of force which anyone has the right to use can be termed “good force,” and any acts of force which normal people do not have the right to commit can be termed “bad force,” (The reader can apply his own standards, and the logic here will still apply.) However, agents of “authority” are imagined to have the right to use force not only in the situations where anyone would have such a right, but in other situations as well, It stands to reason that if everyone has the right to use inherently justified “good force,” and “the law” authorizes agents of “government” to use force in other situations as well, then “law” is the attempt to legitimize bad force, In short, “authority” is permission to commit evil – to do things that would be recognized as immoral and unjustified if anyone else did them.

Obviously, neither the enthusiastic voter who proudly posts a campaign sign in his yard, nor the well-intentioned citizen who “runs for office,” understands this fact. If they did, they would understand that “democracy” is nothing more than majority-approved immoral violence, and cannot possibly fix society or be a tool for freedom or justice.

Despite the mythology which claims that a person’s vote is his “voice,” and that the right to vote is what makes people free, the truth is that all “democracy” dOES is legitimize aggression and unjustified violence. The logic of this is so simple and obvious that an enormous amount of propaganda is needed in order to train people to not see it, If everyone has the right to use inherently righteous force, and “government” agents are allowed to use “force” in other situations as well, then, by its very nature, what “government” adds to society is immoral violence.

The problem is that the people are taught that when violence has been made “legal” and is committed by “authority,” it changes from immoral violence into righteous “law enforcement.” The fundamental premise upon which all “government” rests is the idea that what would be morally wrong for the average person to do can be morally right

when done by agents of “authority,” implying that the standards of moral behavior which apply to human beings do not apply to agents of “government” (again, hinting that the thing called “government” is superhuman). Inherently righteous force, which most people generally agree is limited to defensive force, does not require any “law” or special “authority” to make it valid. The only thing that “law” and “government” are needed for is to attempt to legitimize immoral force And that is exactly what “government” adds, and the only thing it adds, to Society more inherently unjust violence. No one who understands this simple truth would ever claim that “government” is essential to human civilization.

The notion that man-made “law” can negate the usual rules of civilized behavior ha: some fairly terrifying ramifications. If “government” is not limited by basic human morality, which the very concept of “authority” implies, by what standards or principles would “government” action be limited at all? If 30% “taxation” is valid why would 100% “taxation” not be valid? If “legal” theft is legitimate and just, why couldn’t “legalized” torture and murder be legitimate and just? If some “collective need” requires society to have an institution that has an exemption from morality why would there be any limits on what it can do? If exterminating an entire race, or outlawing a religion, or forcibly enslaving millions is deemed necessary for the “common good,” by what moral standards could anyone complain, once they have accepted the premise of “authority”? All belief in “government” rests on the idea that the “common good” justifies the “legal” initiation of violence against innocents to one degree or another. And once that premise has been accepted, there is no objective moral standard to limit “government” behavior. History shows this all too clearly.

Almost everyone accepts the myth that human beings are not trustworthy enough not moral enough, not wise enough to exist in peace without a “government” to keep them in line. Even many who agree that there would be no rulers in an ideal society often opine that human beings are not “ready” for such a society. Such sentiments an based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what “authority” is and what it adds to society. The idea of “government” as a “necessary evil” (as Patrick Henry described it) implies that the existence of “government” imposes restraints upon the violent aggressive nature of human beings, when in reality it does the exact opposite: the belief in “authority”legitimizes and “legalizes” aggression.

Regardless of how foolish or wise human beings are, or how malicious or virtuous they might be, to say that human beings are not “ready” for a stateless society, or cannot be “trusted” to exist without having an “authority” that they bow to, is to say that peaceful civilization can exist only if there is a huge, powerful machine thai introduces an enormous amount of immoral violence into society, Of course, statists do not recognize the violence as immoral, because to them, it is not mere mortals committing the violence, but representatives of the deity known as “government,” .and deities have the right to do things that mortals do not. When described in accurate, literal terms, this nearly universally held belief – that it is necessary to introduce immoral violence into society in order to prevent people from committing immoral violence – is exposed as the patently absurd myth that it is. But everyone who believes in the myth of “government” has to believe exactly that. They do not believe it as a result of rational thought and logic; they accept it as an article of faith, because it is part of the unquestionable doctrine of the church of “government.”

There are several ways to demonstrate that the mythology the public is taught about “government” is self-contradictory and irrational One of the simplest ways is to ask the question: How does someone acquire the right to rule another? The old superstitions asserted that certain people were specifically ordained by a god, or a group of gods, to rule over others. Various legends tell of supernatural events (the Lady of the Lake, the Sword in the Stone, etc.) that determined who would have the Tight to rule over others.

Thankfully, humanity has, for the most part, outgrown those silly superstitions.

Unfortunately, they have replaced by new superstitions that are even less rational.

At least the old myths attributed to some mysterious “higher power” the task of appointing certain individuals as rulers over others – something a deity could at least theoretically do. The new justifications for “authority,” however, claim to accomplish the same amazing feat, but without supernatural assistance. In short, despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations, all modern belief in “government” rests on the notion that mere mortals can, through certain political procedures, bestow upon some people various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with. The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. There is no ritual or document through which any group of people can delegate to someone else a right which no one in the group possesses, And that self-evident truth, all by itself, demolishes any possibility of legitimate “government.” The average person believes that “government” has the right to do numerous things that the average individual does not have the right to do on his own. The obvious question then is, How, and from whom, did those in “government” acquire such rights? How, for example – whether you call it “theft” or “taxation”– would those in “government” acquire the right to forcibly take property from those who haw earned it? No voter has such a right. So how could voters possibly have given such a right to politicians? All modern statism is based entirely on the assumption that people can delegate rights they don’t have. Even the U.S. Constitution pretended to gran to “Congress” the right to “tax” and “regulate” certain things, though the authors of the Constitution had no such right themselves and therefore could not possibly haw given such a fight to anyone else.

Because each person has the right to “rule” himself (as schizophrenic as that idea may be), he can, at least in theory, authorize someone else to rule himself. But a right he does not possess, and therefore cannot delegate to anyone else, is the right to rule someoneelse. And if “government” ruled only those individuals who had each willingly delegated their right to rule themselves, it would not be government.

And the number of people involved does not affect the logic. To claim that a majority can bestow upon someone a right which none of the individuals in that majority possess is just as irrational as claiming that three people, none of whom has a car Cl money to buy a car, can give a car to someone else, To put it in the simplest terms, you can’t give someone something you don’t have. And that simple truth, all by itself, rules out all “government,” because if those in “government” have only those rights possessed by those who elected them, then “government” loses the one ingredient that makes it “government”: the right to rule over others (”authority”). If it has the same rights and powers as everyone else, there is no reason to call it “government.” If the politicians have no more rights than you have, all of their demands and commands, all of their political rituals, “law” books, courts, and so on, amount to nothing more than the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis. Nothing they do can have any legitimacy, any more than if you did the same thing on your own, unless they somehow acquired rights that you do not have. And that is impossible, since no one on earth, and no group of people on earth, could possibly have given them such superhuman rights.

No political ritual can alter morality. No election can make an evil act into a good act.

If it is bad for you to do something, then it is bad for those in “government” to do it. And if the same morality that applies to you also applies to those in “government”if those in “public office” have the same rights that you do, and no more – then “government” ceases to be government. If judged by the same standards as other mortals are judged, those wearing the label of “government” are nothing but a gang of thugs, terrorists, thieves and murderers, and their actions lack any legitimacy, any validity, any “authority.” They are nothing but a band of crooks who insist that various documents and rituals have given them the right to be crooks. Sadly, even most of their victims believe them.

The concept of “authority” depends upon the concepts of right and wrong (i.e., morality).

To wit, having “authority” does not merely mean having the ability to forcibly control other people, something possessed by countless thugs, thieves and gangs who are not referred to as “authority”; it means having the right to control other people, which implies that those being controlled have a moral obligation to obey, not just to avoid punishment but also because such obedience (being “law-abiding”) is morally good and disobedience (”breaking the law”) is morally bad. Thus, for there to be such a thing as “authority,” there must be such a thing as right and wrong. (How one defines right and wrong, or what one believes to be the source of morality, does not particularly matter for purposes of this discussion. Use your own definitions, and the logic will still apply.) While the concept of “authority” requires the existence of right and wrong, it is also ruled out entirely by the existence of right and wrong. A simple analogy will prove that seemingly odd claim.

The laws of mathematics are an objective, unchanging part of reality. If you add two apples to two apples, you will have four apples. Those who study mathematics seek to understand more about reality, to learn about what already is. One who entered the field of math with the stated goal of altering the laws of mathematics would be seen as insane, and rightfully so. Imagine how absurd it would be for some math professor to proclaim, “I hereby decree that henceforth, two plus two shall equal five.” Yet such lunacy is what occurs every time politicians enact “legislation,” They are not merely observing the world, and trying to best determine what is right and what is wrong – something every individual should, and must, do for himself. No, they are claiming to be altering morality, by issuing some new decree, In other words, like the insane math professor who thinks he can, by mere declaration, make two plus two equal five, the politicians speak and act as if they are the source of morality as if they have the power to make up (via “legislation”) what is right and wrong:, as if an act can become bad simply because they declared it to be “illegal.” Whether the issue is math, morality, or anything else, there is a huge difference between trying to determine what is true and trying to dictate what is true. The former is useful; the latter is insane. And the latter is what those in “government” pretend to do every day.

In their “legislation,” the politicians do not merely express how they think people should behave, based upon universal standards of morality. Anyone has the right to say, “I think doing this thing is bad, and doing that thing is good,” but no one would call such opinions “laws.” Instead, the message from the politicians is, “We are making that thing bad, andmaking this thing good.” In short, every “legislator” suffers from a profoundly delusional god-complex, which leads him to believe that, via political rituals, he actually has the power, along with his fellow “legislators,” to change right and wrong, by mere decree.

Mortals cannot alter morality any more than they can alter the laws of mathematics. Their understanding of something may change, but they cannot, by decree, change the nature of the universe. Nor would anyone sane attempt to. Yet that is what every new “law” passed by politicians pretends to be: a change in what constitutes moral behavior. And as idiotic as that notion is, it is a necessary element to the belief in “government”: the idea that the masses are morally obligated to obey the “lawmakers”– that disobeying (”breaking the law”) is morally wrong – not because the politicians’ commands happen to match the objective rules of morality, but because their commands dictate and determine what is moral and what is not.

Understanding the simple fact that mere mortals cannot make good into evil, or evil into good, all by itself makes the myth of “government” disintegrate. Anyone who fully understands that one simple truth cannot continue to believe in “government,” because if the politicians lack such a supernatural power, their commands carry no inherent legitimacy, and they cease to be “authority.” Unless good is whatever the politicians say it is – unless right and wrong actually come from the whims of the politician-gods – then no one can have any moral obligation to respect or obey the commands of the politicians, and their “laws” become utterly invalid and irrelevant.

In short, if there is such a thing as right and wrong at all, however you wish to define those terms, then the “laws” of “government” are always illegitimate and worthless.

Every person is (by definition) morally obligated to do what he feels is right. If a “law” tells him to do otherwise, that “law” is inherently illegitimate, and should be disobeyed.

And if a “law” happens to coincide with what is right, the “law” is simply irrelevant, The reason, for example, to refrain from committing murder is because murder is inherently wrong. Whether or not some politicians enacted “legislation” declaring murder to be wrong – whether or not they “outlawed” it – has no effect whatsoever on the morality of the act. “Legislation,” no matter what it says, is never the reason that something is good or bad. As a result, even “laws” prohibiting evil acts, such as assault, murder and theft, are illegitimate. While people should not commit such acts, it is because the acts themselves are intrinsically evil, not because man-made “laws” say they are wrong. And if there is no obligation to obey the “laws” of the politicians, then, by definition, they have no “authority.” Returning to the math professor analogy, if the professor authoritatively declared that, by his mere decree, he was going to make two plus two equal five, any sane individual would view that decree as incorrect and delusional. If, on the other hand, the professor declared that he was going to make two plus two equal four, such a declaration would still be silly and pointless even though two plus two does equal four. The professor’s declaration is not the reason it equals four. Either way, the professor’s declaration would and should have no effect on people’s ability to add two and two. And so it is with the “laws” of politicians: whether or not they actually coincide with objective right and wrong, they never have “authority,” because they are never the source of right and wrong, they never create an obligation for anyone to behave a certain way, and so should have no bearing on what any individual judges to be moral or immoral.

Consider the example of narcotics “laws.” To believe that it is bad to use violence against someone for having a beer (which is “legal”), but good for “law enforcers” to use violence against someone smoking pot (because it is “illegal”), logically implies that politicians actually have the ability to alter morality – to take two essentially identical behaviors and make one into an immoral act that even justifies violent retribution.

Moreover, if one accepts the legitimacy of “laws” (politician commands), one must also accept that drinking alcohol was perfectly moral one day, but was immoral the next day – the day “prohibition” was enacted. Then, not many years later, it was immoral one day, and moral the next – the day prohibition was repealed. Even the gods of most religions do not claim the power to constantly amend and revise their commandments, to regularly change what is right and wrong. Only politicians claim such a power. Every act of “legislation” involves such lunacy: the notion that one day an act could be perfectly permissible, and the very next day – the day it was “outlawed” – it would be immoral.

Nearly everyone is taught that respect for “the law” is paramount to civilization, and that the good people are those who “play by the rules,” meaning they comply with the commands issued by “government.” But in reality, morality and obedience are often direct opposites. Unthinking adherence to any “authority” constitutes the greatest betrayal to humanity that there could possibly be, as it seeks to discard the free will and individual judgment that make us human and make us capable of morality, in favor of blind obedience, which reduces human beings to irresponsible robots. The belief in “authority” – the idea that the individual ever has an obligation to ignore his own judgment and decision-making process in favor of obeying someone else – is not just a bad idea; it is self-contradictory and absurd. The profound lunacy involved can be summed up as follows: “I believe it’s good to obey the law. In other words, I judge that I should do as the legislators command. In other words, I judge that, rather than making my own decisions about what I should do, I should subjugate myself to the will of those in government. In other words, 1 judge that it is better for my actions to be dictated by the judgment of people in power instead of by my own personal judgment, In other words, I judge that it is right for me to follow the judgment of others, and wrong for me to follow my own judgment. In other words, I judge that I should not judge.”

In any case in which there is a conflict between a person’s own conscience and what “the law” commands, there are only two options: either the person ought to follow his own conscience regardless of what the so-called “law” says, or he is obligated to obey “the law,” even though that means doing what he personally thinks is wrong. Regardless of whether the individual’s judgment is flawed or not, it is schizophrenic insanity for a person to believe that it is good for him to do what he believes is bad. Yet that is the basis of the belief in “authority.” If one understands the fact that every individual is obligated, at all times and in all places, to do whatever he thinks is right, then he cannot have any moral obligation to obey any outside “authority.” Again, if a “law” coincides with the individual’s judgment, the “law” is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, the “law” conflicts

with his individual judgment, then the “law” must be viewed as illegitimate. Either way, the “law” has no “authority.” (An obligation to obey an “authority” is not the same as people voluntarily altering their behavior for the sake of peaceful coexistence. For example, a person may think he has every right to play music in his own backyard, but may nonetheless choose not to at his neighbor’s request. Or a person may change how he dresses, talks, and behaves when he visits some other culture, or some setting where his usual behavior might offend others.

There are many factors which can impact someone’s opinion about what he should or should not do. Recognizing “authority” as a myth is not at all the same as not caring what anyone else thinks. Going along with various customs, standards of behavior, and other societal norms, for the sake of getting along and avoiding conflicts, is often a perfectly rational and useful thing to do. What is not rational is for someone to feel morally obliged to do something he does not personally judge to be the right thing to do, given the circumstances.) To be blunt, the belief in “authority” serves as a mental crutch for people seeking to escape the responsibility involved with being a thinking human being. It is an attempt to pass off the responsibility for decision-making to someone else – those claiming to be “authority.” But the attempt to avoid responsibility by “just following orders” is silly, because it requires the person to choose to do what he was told. Even what appears as blind obedience is still the result of the individual choosing to be obedient. Not choosing anything is not possible, Or, as the band Rush put it, in their song “Free Will,” “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

The excuse “I was only following orders,” neatly dodges the fact that the person first had to decide that he would obey “authority.” Even if some “authority” proclaims, “You must obey me,” as countless conflicting “authorities” have claimed, the individual still must choose which one, if any, to believe. The fact that most people give very little thought to such things does not change the fact that they had the option of not obeying, and are therefore completely responsible for their actions – precisely the responsibility they wanted “authority” to relieve them of. It is impossible not to judge; it is impossible not to make choices. For a person to pretend that someone or something else made his choices for him – that he played no part in the decision, and thus bears no responsibility for the outcome – is utterly insane. Loyal obedience to “authority,” while painted by many as a great virtue, is really nothing more than a pathetic attempt to escape the responsibility of being human and reduce oneself to an unthinking, amoral, programmable machine.

Everyone, at all times, makes his own choices and is personally responsible for thOSE choices. Even those who hallucinate an “authority” are still choosing to believe, and choosing to obey, and are still responsible for having done so. “Authority” is merely a delusion whereby people imagine that it is possible to avoid responsibility by merely doing what they were told. Or, to express it in a more personal way: Your actions are always determined entirely by your own judgment, and your own choices. To try to attribute your behavior to some outside force, such as “authority” is cowardly and dishonest. You made the choice, and you are responsible. Even if you just stupidly obeyed some self-proclaimed “authority,” you decided to do that. The claim that there was something outside of yourself making your choices for you – the claim that you had no choice; that you had to obey “authority”– is a cowardly lie.

There is no shortcut to determining truth, about morality or anything else. All too often, the basis of people’s belief system boils down to this: “To know what is true, all I have to do is ask my infallible authority; and I know my authority is always right, because it tells

me that it is always right.” Of course, countless competing, contradictory “authorities” will always exist, and each will declare itself to be the source of truth. It is, therefore, not merely a good idea for people to judge for themselves what is true and what is not; it is completely unavoidable. Even those who consider it a great virtue to have a belief system – political, religious, or otherwise – based upon “faith” fail to realize that only an individual can decide what to have faith in. Whether he wants to admit it or not, he is always the ultimate decider; he always uses his own judgment to decide what to believe and what to do.