Untitled essay by Larken Rose:
http://www.everything-voluntary.com/2012/11/toward-freedom-larken-rose.htmlNow, most of the anarchists I know gave up statism because they decided that, as a practical matter, a completely free society would work better than any "government"-controlled society, and that "government" is not really necessary. But I arrived at anarchism/voluntaryism by a different route: I figured out, via simple logic, that "government" is impossible. I don't mean that good "government" is impossible (though it is); I mean that the entire concept of "government" is a self-contradictory myth. There's no such thing, and can be no such thing. There can never be a legitimate ruling class, so arguing about what kind of ruling class we should have, or what it should do, was a completely pointless discussion. If "government" isn't real, debating what it should be like is silly.
Of course, the gang of mercenaries is very real, as are the politicians, but it is the supposed legitimacy of their rule that makes them "government," and makes their commands "law," and makes disobedience to such commands "crime," and so on. Without the right to do what they do - without the moral right to rule - the gang ceases to be "government," and becomes organized crime. By trying to reconcile contradictions in my own political beliefs, I proved to myself that "government" can never be legitimate. It can never have "authority." However necessary it supposedly is, and however noble the stated goal might be, I eventually realized that it is utterly impossible for anyone to acquire the
right to rule others, even in a limited, "constitutional" way.
(all emphasis mine. ML)
Author
Topic: Votes not legally binding, then what is democracy? (Read 1497 times)