There is no such thing as legitimate government. That can be proven to be objectively true, yet you won't hear that from anyone who benefits as a result in that mystical entity.
You may have an opinion that I am wrong in my assertion, but universally consistent, non contradictory observations prove the validity of that claim.
Anyone who wants to test the validity of this claim need only ask themselves or anyone else a few very basic questions that lead to one logical conclusion.
-
Do I have the legitimate authority to take any portion of your income without your express permission? (Or do I have the authority to arbitrarily dictate how you live?)
-
Do I have the legitimate authority to delegate that task of taking a portion of your income without your express permission onto my neighbor on my behalf? (Or do I have the authority to delegate the task of controlling how you live onto my neighbor on my behalf?)
-
Do I have the legitimate authority to delegate that task of taking a portion of your income without your express permission onto a group of people on my behalf? (Or do I have the authority to delegate the task of controlling how you live onto a group of people on my behalf?)
There is only 1 logically consistent answer to these questions. Which leads to the last question.
- How do politicians gain an authority from people who do not possess that authority?
Magic does not exist. It is an impossibility. Therefore, there is no such thing as legitimate government.
Any philosopher worth their salt knows this. But since most come from Academia, it is not in their interest to speak so openly and honestly about this truth that is kept hidden and locked away from the masses to maintain a certain power structure.
6
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
16 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I see there have been lots of responses to my post. That is great to see. Thank you all.
I can not possibly respond directly to everyone commenting, but I am willing to have an informal debate or conversation with anyone who would like to do so. We can do it in a Live Google Hangout, and I will share a link to it here afterwards for everyone to watch. Let me know.
CL
cdnlibertarian
Level 5
Apr 21, 2019
1
I have to say that you started a very thought-provoking and stimulating thread here Thanks.
Your premise is wrongly stated, and your questions have nothing to do with the reality of government.
First of all, your premise reads: "There is no such thing as legitimate government. That can be proven to be objectively ..."
It should read: "There is no such thing as legitimate government that can be proven to be objectively..."
Second, your questions completely ignore the fact that we, as a society, have agreed to elect people democratically to represent us and to assign certain limited powers to those who govern us, i.e. the government.
Good try though.
pchacon
Level 1
Apr 21, 2019
1
I believe in limited Government. The quality of the general populace decides what level of Government is needed. There will never be a time when the Government can be totally trusted but the same sentiment applies to the general populace. People can't be trusted to police themselves.
JobyOneKenobi
Level 7
Apr 20, 2019
3
I understand the sentiment of your reply. I just firmly believe that the only way we are going to move past people's belief in Statism is to give them the truth in regards to what it means. That way we can come together in order to go about determining the next evolutionary phase of human co-operation and co-existence. Repeating the cycles of the past is not conducive to advancing the human mind to be suited for a whole new way of doing things. I am not saying that we need to end the State overnight. Just that the first step requires people to know what Statism truly means.
I'm gonna stop your right there ....
The fault lies in your first question: yes, our government expressly has the right to collect taxes - we gave it to them. In return, the government has the responsibility to protect our liberties.
I strongly suspect that you would voluntarily make that trade, else you would have only your own wits and strength to protect you from approximately 7.7 billion on this planet who might choose to deprive you of said liberties.
jneedler
Level 6
Apr 20, 2019
3
If it is voluntary, it is not taxation. Just like making love is not the same as being raped. I have voluntarily entered into and agreed upon the terms of many contracts in my life. And at no point did any participant or signee have the pretense of authority to escape the rules laid out in the contract.
That should also be an option. See Thoreau
@cdnlibertarian You seem to be arguing in circles with yourself:
"There is no such thing as legitimate government .... [does government] have the legitimate authority to take any portion of your income without your express permission? (Or do I have the authority to arbitrarily dictate how you live?)"
-and-
"If it is voluntary, it is not taxation."
Maybe you could try stating a clear, succinct point regarding taxes, such as I did: "our government expressly has the right to collect taxes - we gave it to them."
Edit - As it stands right now, I'm not really clear what your position on taxation is. Since your original post hinges on the legitimacy of collecting income taxes, it seems fairly pertinent.
@jneedler I have never in my entire life agreed to any form of taxation. Just because politicians can trick the average person or business owners into believing it is a consequence of some mystical social contract that we all supposedly signed, doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. I have never signed any social contract. Is that clear enough for you?
@cdnlibertarian That certainly clears it up for me, thank you. On a related note, if you don't support any kind of taxes, was there a reason your original post focused exclusively on income taxes? I'm just trying to make sure I'm not missing an aspect of what you're saying.
Regarding taxes more broadly, if you don't believe any taxes are legitimate, how do you believe a government should be funded? (I'm assuming you believe we need at least some government)
@jneedler I like to be blunt to provoke serious thought regarding what government represents. No point in beating around the bushes on a site called IDW. I will add further food for thought, but I am busy currently. Stay tuned. And thanks for obviously being a person who is willing to use logic and universal ethics as a guiding force for your thought processes.
@jneedler I will add that voluntary contractual agreements and obligations using Blockchain technology is now a reality. No central planning government needed.
@cdnlibertarian Can you elaborate on "No central planning government needed" ? Do you mean no government at all? Or are you just referring to economic matters when you say 'central planning'?
I think you confuse Government with Politics.
There is either some form of Government or, there is Anarchy.
Anarchy usually results in the Strong Governing the Weak through Use of Force.
I can see being disconcerted by the forms of Government you see around you ... mostly as they have been perverted by Politicians ... but wondering whether Any form of Government is “valid” is one of those Navel Gazing forms of “Philosophy” ... rather useless.
Bay0Wulf
Level 8
Apr 20, 2019
2
Ever since the enlightenment we have had the social contract theory in place. Governments of some type are natural. Let's say all governments as we knew them were poof... gone.... and the anarchy of the strong and molevelant ruled the day. You would see us forming tribes to try to create some kind if stability. These would create some kinds of enforceable rules. They would become the new governments.
It is something we trade for. We need something to try to stabilize the world around us and give life some structure. It doesn't always work. What we give for that stabalizing entity is in work (taxes) and the choice to live a life of anarchy.
SeanT
Level 5
Apr 20, 2019
3
Telling people the truth is the first step in finding new solutions to old problems. I don't pretend to know how to create a more free society all by myself. However, I do know that pretending that some human beings have legitimate authority over others by way of voting is what has brought us to where we are today. Think harder.
We see rule of strong and malevolent in our day to day via the social contract. States aren’t perfect and shouldn’t be considered the *solution to the problem of nature abbhoring vacuums. They’re the result of it which means they come with a set of issues despite the veil of civility
I guess it depends what you mean by the term "legitimate". Authority in society is always delegated, just because one person cannot possibly do everything, and also because its enjoyable to interact with other people and to do things through cooperation, unless of course you want to live alone on a desert island, and be completely self-sufficient, a la Robinson Crusoe. So the question becomes: what will be the basis for such a delegation of authority? You don't need to call it 'government'; for instance, just call it, 'the workplace' or 'football club', to see that most kinds of human association develop certains ways of delegating authority- even in the home, with a married or unmarried couple, one spouse might be responsible for certain things, whilst the other might be responsible for other things, etc. Over thousands of years, humankind has come up with many different answers and ideas as to what is the best way to delegate authority, and many different ideas as to what constitutes a 'legitimate' authority. There is no single, logically consistent rule, simple because human life, unlike mathematics or algebra, does not follow strict rules of logic. So there are questions that arise, and value-decisions which cannot be avoided about how such delegated authority might work. The Soviet Union existed on the basis of the notion that the organization of society should follow certain strict rules of nature, that were supposed to logically necessary, but we can see how far that got everyone.
That's the short answer. For the rest, go and get reading, perhaps starting with an Ancient Greek dude called Plato (his book The Republic, is as good as any. It is not about Republicanism as such, but more a general discussion about the ramifications of different kinds of political systems. He sets out the options, then allows you to choose. That is, if you want to choose).
cheers
Yarkov
Jerusalem_Athens
Level 3
Apr 20, 2019
1
Plato in the Republican certainly seems to favor the Philosopher-King. A scary idea at best. Which philosophy? Certainly, one could make the case that socialism/communism has been realized as a philosophy with great damage to its own populations. Lenin, Stalin & Mao all ruled with far more authority than any of the historical European monarchs, all under the guise of realizing Marx's philosophical science.
I think your mistake here lies in your example (income taxation). While I don't think that income taxation is justifiable, government is justified by social contract theory and agency theory. By living in a certain place, you give up certain rights so that everybody plays by the same rules. You can authorize people to act as agents on your behalf. Politicians get authority from a governing document, which, in the U.S., was created by agents authorized by the people to act on behalf of the people.
If people decide that they don't like the rules of a place, they can leave. For example, people in CA leave CA and go to AZ because of the shitty progressive policies (the rules) that the CA government creates.
There are definitely abuses of government power, but I don't think it is logical or practical to argue that all government is illegitimate.
plebeian_lobster
Level 6
Apr 20, 2019
2
Government depends on emotionally crippled people . Dependency is political currency . Politicians bank on it . People depend on government to rob their neighbors , for their gain .
Georgesblogforum
Level 7
Apr 20, 2019
2
Government being of human construct out of necessity in order to promote prosperity, safety and well being for all members of a given society is legitimate. The very word "society" is implicit of "governance". Governance is really the establishment of the populations agreed upon terms and rules by which each member and groups of members will conduct their personal lives and affairs. This is the tacit and imperative foundation of a "legitimate" and established form of governance. Of course as mankind is corrupt or at least easily corruptible so are all of mans institutions including government, organized religion, educational...etc. All of which are every bit as "legitimate" as is government itself.
iThink
Level 9
Apr 19, 2019
0
Maybe you should list things that you might consider legitimate roles of human government . Then ask the question. ""Is their any such thing as legitimate government." Don't justify a position by listing things that are for the most part tyranny.
DanMartinovich
Level 7
Apr 19, 2019
2
No lover of government here -- but, likewise, no lover of the anarchy of the jungle either. If I had to threaten everybody around me with bodily injury in retaliation for any and every encroachment because there was no enforcible agreement about what anybody could do with what's mine, I'd have to be able to feed and clothe myself on my property. You can only discuss this because you aren't hunting and gathering. There's arguably some middle ground, here -- but that would include some kind of government.
Lickspittle
Level 6
Apr 19, 2019
1
Anarchists are just as naïve as communists. Both have skewed perspectives of human nature. They are both overly optimistic regarding humankind's nature.
@plebeian_lobster Not to mention plainly overlooking obvious facts...
I am not advocating for anarchy of the Jungle I am just pointing out an objective and undeniable fact. What people do with that information is up to them. Telling your children that the Easter Bunny isn't real doesn't mean that you are saying people shouldn't celebrate Easter.
@cdnlibertarian Then what are you advocating by putting this out there?
I've been a LP member from 1999 - 2016. I ran a local county party as the elected chair for 3 terms and the vice-chair for two. I've seen this kind of philosophical purism many times and have seen it make Libertarians look pretty silly going to the very extreme of the philosophy -- to the point to impracticality. Even been guilty of it myself on an issue or three. 
Sometimes, in the political tug-of-war, pulling way too hard one way just to try to get the whole thing to the middle is common. Sometimes, it just an excuse to not be practical, so it's not our fault when things aren't balanced or not working well.
Many of us Libertarians are guilty of the same thing the hard left is guitly of -- to think what ought to be is what ideal we want to compare everything to. We can be just as guilty as the left of being utopian.
Legitimate means legal, votes are made and tallied, one with most wins. Sounds legit to me. Yes you have a "Legitimate Goverment" with the question of who's votes were tallied. Read a copy of the original Bill of Rights and then with all Amendments and you may see why it is a "Legitimate Government" but you may also wonder if they follow the laws.
MilesPurdue
Level 7
Apr 19, 2019
0
Please explain to me how you as a person who has no legitimate claim of authority over my productive income can delegate that authority (to take from me without my express permission) onto someone else just because you checked a box on a ballot. The same holds true for one person or a Million people. You can not delegate an authority you do not possess onto others.
cdnlibertarian after sorting out your statement I will say I don't have or claim authority to delegate anything of yours. It may be possible to denounce citizenship of where you live, then you are on you're own and may need to ask permission to do things you want. If you are asking why we have a government, I would think it is so people can work together for survival and better living conditions. Looking at legitimate, it seems "Legal" would be a group with "Power" deciding. I think in the 1960's elementary school teachings of how USA government started showed the ones with power asked other's opinions while discussing rules to live by so they could formulate fair regulation to live by. Does that cover "Legitimate" as simple I can ? Now if they make regulations without asking other's opinion they are on the legal or not.
Government is for the weak. They pas laws and force submission at the end of a gun. It's the purest form of organized crime
JB313
Level 5
Apr 19, 2019
1
Would unorganized crime be preferable to organized crime? Me personally, I feel you are always better off having your shit together.
Having your "shit" systematically taken from you is not what I consider as "having your shit together". At least with random crime you stand a chance to fend them off. Organized crime hits everyone.
@JB313 Government is for both weak and strong. It protects the one weak person from the strong person and it protects the strong person from the many weak people who have decided to band together to kill the strong person. It seems like nature is either be alone and get stomped on by a tribe or join a tribe and live. If the weak join the tribe, then they become strong. If the strong is alone, then it becomes weak.
@plebeian_lobster If the tribe makes the individual stronger and the individual alone becomes weak, then why does the tribe have to send many to coerce the individual to comply to the tribes authority?
@JB313 Because it benefits the tribe to have more people than other tribes have.
@plebeian_lobster I am speaking from the perspective of the individual. Tribalism is governance and that is the problem. Individuals weaken in a tribal society because they forget how to provide for themselves. They become dependent on the tribe to provide for them. If societal structure failed today, urban tribes would be decimated within days. Weak individuals don't strengthen in a tribe, they are subjugated into a role for the tribe.
@JB313 I don't think that is entirely true. While in some cases, yes, the members rely too much on the tribe and become weaker in a sense, that does not mean that because you are a member of a tribe, you are weaker. The ultimate tribe is a family. If you were to take a family and separate it, in many cases, each member would be a lot weaker. Notwithstanding, there are some families that are dysfunctional. If you took those families and separated them, then yes, each individual would likely be stronger.
My point is that saying that government is for the weak is probably painting with a brush that is a bit too broad. There are good governments and there are bad governments. Bad governments weaken their members in a sense but good governments can strengthen their weaker members.
I am by no means a statist. A believe in very limited government. But I do believe in some government. I think society can make people better or worse depending on the culture. I think government can make people better or worse depending on the type of government.
@plebeian_lobster Obviously, we have very different definitions of strength and weakness. If you only see strength in numbers, then you are correct. However, if you are talking individual strength, then you made my point in the first paragraph of your last comment. "If you were to take a family and separate it, in many cases, each member would be weaker." Tribalism promotes dependency on others and thus weakens the individual. Individualism promotes dependency on self, and by doing so strengthens the individual. Many against few will win in most cases, not because of individual strength, but because of the overwhelming numbers of expendables.
@JB313 I don't mean strength only in terms of numbers. I mean strength overall. Take a kid and send him into the wilderness and let him try to make it on his own. Kid is gonna die. Take a kid, put him in a tribe (family) and he will learn and grow strong because of his tribe.
Again, saying that tribalism promotes dependency in every case is wrong. It's not that black and white. It seems like you'd say that the guy who lives his entire life out in the woods on his own, off the grid, beyond detection of the government is going to be a stronger person than the person who lives in a small town. I just don't think that is ever going to be the case. I am very pro-individualist, but I think it goes too far to shun "tribes" all together. People need people. And when there is more than one person in a place, there must be rules--there must be some type of government.
@plebeian_lobster Then this will be where we agree to disagree. In my world, I know know I am stronger when I fend for myself and weaker when depending on others. The weak need "tribes". It has always been and always will be. A tribe can teach skills, it can't teach strength. Self reliance teaches true strength. With that said, I have enjoyed our exchange and look foward to others. Thank you for your candor.
It's like this, you see, a long time ago some people did something and made some marks on a piece of paper.
That piece of paper said that everyone who agrees must do what it said and that they could commit violence toward you if you didn't do what it said.
Then they made new marks on the paper saying you had to give them some of your stuff or they would take all of your stuff.
When you complained they said "but you agreed..."
cRaZyTMG
Level 7
Apr 19, 2019
3
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.