“Authority is the belief another man has a higher claim to your life, liberty, and property than you do.”
Authority is a man-made construct, an illusion, and does NOT exist in nature. Everyone from the poly-tics to the judge all claim they have authority. These people actually believe they have control over other people’s life, liberty, and property and are willing to use violence to keep the illusion intact. The main components holding the illusion of authority together are 1) mind control and 2) violence.
First, lets tackle the mind control component of authority because it is the glue that holds the system in place. When you ask the poly-tics where they obtained or derived their authority, they will often cite the Constitution (of whatever country). The Constitution of the United States was a document written in 1787 and thought of as the framework for the country. It is commonly taught that the Constitution is what gives people or grants people’s “rights.” The consequence of thinking that a 200+ year old piece of paper with words written on it by men who are dead grants “rights” is: your rights are dependent on something outside of you or your control. If the piece of paper disappears do your rights also disappear? If men alter the words on the paper, which they have before, does that also alter your rights? So rights can change? What even is a right?
When I ask most people what a right is they often describe abilities. The right to peacefully assemble, right to free speech, right to bear arms (possess tools), right to follow whatever religion, etc; are all abilities. The reality is, a piece of paper does nothing to GRANT or PROTECT abilities. After most people really contemplate what their rights are, they often arrive at a position where any abilities or action one can perform that does not stop or infringe on other people’s abilities/actions (are rights). Further, actions or abilities that infringe or stop other people’s abilities/actions is “wrong”. When describing the nature of reality in this way, by deducting what our rights are by eliminating what is wrong for us to do, is referred to as Negative-Rights. We don’t have the right to steal or violate another person, so no amount of voting or delegating it to another person will convert it into a “right,” which is what people attempt to do with modern day government.
Another way to say it is “your rights stop where mine begin and vise-versa.” For example, everyone has the right to consume any substance they choose as long as they are not directly harming or violating another person by doing so. Other people DO NOT have the right to stop that person from consuming the substance. They don’t have the right to stop that person even if they call themselves government.
In the case of bitcoin, since no one is being harmed by someone running software on their computer (property), it cannot be considered a wrong or a crime. No one has the right to stop anyone from running or interacting with software providing it does not violate another person. I cannot think of one possible example of someone running software on their own computer causing a direct effect where someone is harmed as a result. Paying someone in bitcoin to violate another person does not count, as the simple act of sending the transaction did not violate anyone. Any action that does not result in the direct violation of another person is considered “not wrong” or a “right.” However, people who call themselves government will label certain actions that are a “right” as a crime; often referred to as a non-violent victimless crime. Historically, a crime has been commonly defined as something that involves a victim; and a victim is someone who has been injured or harmed. To be clear, non-violent victimless crimes do not exist in nature. The whole concept of labeling an action as a non-violent victimless crime is to CONTROL people. If you are reading this, hopefully I sound like a broken record because that means you get it.
Authority and control in the context of governance are essentially the same thing. No one has the “right” to control another human; that would be considered slavery. Even if a person consents to being a slave, they can only consent in the present moment and cannot logically consent to being a slave in a future state. Consent, as in the context of engaging in a sexual act with another person, can be withdrawn at any time, period.
For a deep dive into the debunking of the Constitution and it’s alleged authority, I suggest you read Lysander Spooner’s excellent essay published in 1867 titled No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. I consider Spooner’s essay near required reading for someone new to this idea and who wishes to deeply understand how the constitution could not have possibly created authority for men today. Comprehending this idea is critical because those claiming authority tend to cite the constitution as the ultimate source of their authority.
Lysander points out that the Constitution more resembles an Agreement than a Contract. In addition, the men who wrote it did not include any language that attempts to bind the future generations of people to it. It cannot possibly be a contract that binds the “public” because we know only a small portion of the people during that time were consulted to express their consent or dissent on the manner, and those who did are all dead by now.
People who voluntarily vote or voluntarily pay taxes could be viewed as consenting to the Constitution; however, those actions cannot possibly bind others to it. Lysander also points out a very small % of the public actually voted, which holds true today, and it can only possibly bind them for the time period the vote is valid for. If a person does not vote during the next election, it would be as if they removed their consent. Even if someone votes, there is still a question of if they did it voluntarily or under force or coercion.
The act of paying taxes could also be considered an action that binds people to the Constitution and the subsequent government. However, all people who produce are required (or coerced by the threat of violence) by the government to pay various forms of taxes or else be imposed on. Because of the threats of violence, it is near impossible to determine if the consent of those involved is voluntary. Like a viscous loop, once people are coerced to pay taxes, a portion of those will vote in an attempt to prevent their money from being used against them.
The next question in my mind is, are there any forms of authority that are legit? One instance I can think of is if two people or groups of people entered into an agreement in the form of a contract, and choose a 3rd party to be a judge to determine an outcome for a situation that was not specified in the contract.
A friend explained a contract to me in a general, non-legalese sense like this: when two people enter into a relationship, the outcomes are infinite. Some relationships require the CONTRACTING of those infinite possible outcomes down to a very specific one, such as Bob provides Alice with lawn care once a week and she pays him a certain amount of money in exchange for the service. Ideally, when you enter into an agreement with someone where there is a lot on the line, you want to list all the scenarios that could happen along the way and how to handle those situations, so it prevents the need for a judge or arbitrator. There comes a point of diminishing returns when listing events that are highly unlikely to occur, so at some point, those involved may want to list a catch all, such as Carol will act as an arbiter to decide how to resolve a contentious issue that was not specified in the contract. If an event that was not specified in the contract occurred, then Carol would have the authority to rule over Alice and Bob’s life/property.
Now, lets shift gears over to the Court Game… In order to defend ourselves we require the state to fulfill their obligation of satisfying the burden of proof of their claim. The state will claim the defendant broke one or some of their rules. Before we even discuss the merit of their claim, we need to first verify those rules even apply to the alleged defendant. The state refers to this concept as Jurisdiction and there are three different types. I will likely talk about each type in detail in later articles but ultimately, certain elements (or ingredients) are required for the Judge and the court to have “authority” to hear a case, and we are using Socratics to verify the evidence of those elements. If the rules do not apply to the defendant, then there is no reason to even discuss if the defendant broke the rules. If the prosecutor is unable to provide evidence that the rules apply, by their rules, the case should be dismissed.
What would satisfy the element of jurisdiction in court? If we look to military court and a soldier attempts this strategy, the state would likely produce a contract (called the UCMJ – Uniform Code of Military Justice) signed by the defendant that clearly states the defendant consents to be under the jurisdiction and authority of the state. As I stated earlier, in reality, consent can be withdrawn at any time, but if the alleged rule breaking occurred prior to the withdraw, the rules would still apply and the state has the required evidence to proceed.
Some people will ask me, “well what about actual criminals, do you think their cases should be dismissed for the same reasons? for lack of evidence of jurisdiction?” and I usually answer this Socratically with “do you think unethical actors deserve to be treated ethically?” In other words, if someone is violating another person, do you think they forfeit their “right” to be treated ethically? My answer is YES, and it can be done within the framework of the Non-Aggression Principle and her masculine brother, the Principle of Self Defense. I will leave it there and if you disagree or want clarification, I invite you to leave a comment or join the discord server for further discussion.
The other component holding the illusion of authority together is Violence, or the threat of violence. Just because someone is willing to use violence to force others to follow their rules does not make the rules or authority legitimate. In the Court Game, there is always the threat of violence looming over the alleged defendant which is referred to as the gun in the room. The Court Game rules state that it is okay for judges to put someone in jail for breaking one of the Court Games rules. For an example, if someone continually interrupts a judge or another participant, the judge can put that person in jail for however long they see fit. In some cases, judges have left people in jail for so long that an outside party had to file paper work to free the person, or at a minimum, get them back in the Court Game. The only reason most people show up to a court is because they fear violence being imposed on them if they do not comply.
We know the government, or even organized crime groups, prefer to not use violence as it is terrible for public relations (PR). When I speak of violence in reference to the court game or the government, it usually comes in the form of arresting (kidnapping) and jailing (caging) someone for a period of time, which is expensive. Normally, I advocate for people to physically defend themselves when someone is violating them; however, with big criminal organizations such as the government, one must consider the force continuum that will likely happen if they do use physical force to defend themselves. What I mean is, if you are able to defend yourself against being kidnapped by a couple of government agents, then they are likely to send more and more agents until you are unable to do so, and may kill you in the process.
I don’t have much more to say about violence in regards to authority other than it becomes expensive, to the point where it has problems scaling or being used widely in certain situations. I will present methods to overcome the fear of violence in the article discussing Mindset, and ways to navigate the threat of violence such as public pressure/awareness in the Game Theory article. Once those topics are covered, we will analyze the different situations one may find themselves in when defending against bureaucratic attacks. I will present these situations with examples of how the verbal interaction might go between the people involved, and break down how to use Socratics to mitigate the attack.