I argue, that the State holds no legitimacy (Ability to be defended with logic or justification; validity) to the powers it exercizes. Moreover I argue, that the State should not have ever existed and ought to be abolished. I argue, that the State cannot hold true to the claim, that it derives it’s legitimacy from the peple it governs.
The State, if run by the people, must be, in order to be legitimate, conformed to the same exact rules that it gives unto the people, but since the State by its very definition is a monopoly over the use of coercion, it hence cannot be subject to the rules that it deplorably superimposes unto people, because people themselves cannot legitimately constitute a monopoly. Therefore all, however geographically constrained, monopolies over the use of force cannot possibly have any legitimacy whatsoever, or at least they cannot derive the legitimacy from the people they govern. Moreover, even if you take the other definition of legitimacy (Conformity to the law or to rules) and try to apply it unto the State, you have to first ask the question: to the laws and rules of whom is the State the subject of? Clearly it is not of the governed, since if an individual is not allowed to govern himself, then he cannot properly delegate the right to govern, unto another; or rather the State (or whoever) cannot properly beget a right, that the begetter does not own or have. Furthermore, even if an individual has the right to govern himself, then he cannot properly delegate a right of governing unto someone else, except perhaps if he delegates that right to a person, who in effect has begotten the right to govern only to a person, that they derived the right from, but no other. To clarify: I own myself, therefore I can hit myself if I so please. I can legitimately delegate the right to hit (that would however be rather foolish) to someone else, but he can only use the right I gave him to hit me, and no other may be legitimately harmed.
By a proper conclusion it is however possible for the State to exist, excepting the fact that it holds no monopoly over use of force, because the only force it can legitimately use must be of equal value as those it governs and the governed themselves never claim to have the monopoly over use of force themselves, hence the State cannot do so as well. Moreover, that State can only govern those, who properly delegated their right unto it, and it may not use it upon those who have chosen to abstain from delegating their rights or who have chosen to delegate their rights unto someone else. Furthermore, the one, to whom something is delegated, let it be the State or whomever, may only be a proper delegatee up until the point, when the delegator fully agress with it and only if the delegator has properly delegated his rights unto another (even if it may be the State), by giving his direct authorization by a signature (and quite possibly an agreement). Had the signature not been given, nor an agreement written, no one may postulate that the vote (or the process of delegation) has even taken place and that one has agreed. Thus, if the process was anonymous, the delegator may not be held accountable for any acts that were, by the secret process, delegated, nor can they be held accountable or even revealed.
Moreover it is nothing short of wicked and atrocious, that anyone, let alone a pestilent group of people, who call themselves the holders of the rights, that were supposedly delegated to them, the State, may legitimately say that they know full well, who is it, that they beget their right to govern and to use coercion against. Since nobody can know, nor check if it were true, who cast a vote, and to whom he tried to delegate his rights unto, it is fair to say, that the delegatees (the State) is running without any soundness to its claims. Furthermore, even if it were to be proven, that coercion may be used for whatever means (not only for self defense) by an individual (and we know full well, that it is legitimately not so), the delegatees (the State) is still nothing short of a band of thieves and murderers. Moreover, if one claims that the government is constituted by the governed; if that government uses coercion as their means and derives their right from the secret ballot, it is correct to say that the government is a secred band of thieves and murderers, and you can never know if it was your neighbour or someone else, who in effect, by their secret ballot, is the one of those secret band of thieves and murderes, begetters of the crime, that is being run upon them, and everyone else, on a given territory, upon everyone, whether they delegated them the right to use coercion against them or not.
The only way, a State could, with validity, hold their monopoly over the use of force upon everyone on a certain territory, and claim its legitimacy, is if the people never had any rights in the first place, if those people were nothing short of slaves. If that is the case, the vote (the delegation of one’s rights) is of no use and the State can only exist by something other than a human. In order for State to exercize the legitimacy for its claims, it must have been begotten from something else than a human. It may be an alien if you wish, but it may not be a human. Because the Creator of life has given each and everyone of us, humans, the gifts of: life, individuality, self-ownership and also liberty. While we may delegate these rights upon someone else, as soon as the delegatee takes all of those rights from us by in effect killing us, he may not do so upon anyone else but us and if we have done that, if we have properly delegated our rights (and none of us has), we are to be killed, since we are the perpetrators of the crime we are delegating, and thus we will die from the sword that is ours. Therefore if we do cast our non-binding (since it wasn’t signed) agreement (that they don’t even reveal, what it is we are agreeing to live under) by a secret ballot, we ourselves are those secret band of thieves and murderers, we ourselves are those who allow for people to think that any of this system has any legitimacy and validity, because we all know it has none when we think about it as I just did.
Therefore the notion, that the State has any validity for the rights it claims to have, is absurd and fallacious and it should be abolished. Though illegitimate, one of the clearer examples for the truth of this claim I just made, would be a test, to see if people, by a secret ballot, would have to be able to abolish the government. We know full well, that, unless by use of coercion (which is still not monopolized if I might add), that is not possible, and the State would revolt with a gruesome answer, that the people cannot legitimately abolish the government, because the constitution does not allow it, that the State is in effect the only indefeasible entinty, no matter how execrable it is. Since the Constitution is not a person and since the State claims it begets its right to exist from the people (who have by no means ever signed and in many cases haven’t even read, much less understood the Constitution, and were not there to write it for themselves as a legitimate agreement) then the people would have to have had the right to abolish the State which claims that it has begotten their powers and rights from the people. If that is not the case and if the Constitution binds the government, and not the governed, then the government is created solely by those delegators who have written and signed the Constitution and thereby cannot bind anyone else unto obeying it, but the delegators themselves. Moreover this shows, that the powers of Government are criminally derived from a handfull of men, and are therefore abhorrently abused over the people who cannot even delegate their government the rights that they have, nor fight or challenge it.
May I end with a simple thought? We as people ought to help each other. We ought to live for each other’s happyness and virtue, not each other’s anger and hate. We ought to do good to each other lest we set forth the precedent that will reach ourselves.
Additional Resources:
- Common sense
- Lysander Spooner: Constitution of No Authority
- I’m Allowed to Rob You!
- Magical Government
- The Reality of the State | Stefan Molyneux
- The Complete and Undeniable Truth – Larken Rose
- Statism as Religion: Larken Rose on the Tom Woods Show
- Civilized Society, are we?
- Government cannot serve
- Thomas Paine: He, who would like to make his liberty secure…
Reblogged this on Svoboda!.