In addition to the myth of “the consent of the governed,” other sayings and dogmatic
rhetoric are often repeated, despite being completely inaccurate. For example, in the
United States the people are taught – and faithfully repeat – such ideas as “We are the
government” and “The government works for us” and “The government represents us,”
Such aphorisms are blatantly and obviously untrue, despite the fact that they are
constantly parroted by rulers and subjects alike.
One of the most bizarre and delusional (but very common) claims is that “We, the people,
are the government.” Schoolchildren are taught to repeat this absurdity, even though
everyone is fully aware that the politicians issue commands and demands, and everyone
else either complies or is punished. In the United States there is a ruling class and a
subject class, and the differences between them are many and obvious. One group
commands, the other obeys. One group demands huge sums of money, the other group
pays. One group tells the other group where they can live, where they can work, what
they can eat, what they can drink, what they can drive, who they can work for, what work
they can do, and so on. One group takes and spends trillions of dollars of what the other
group earns. One group consists entirely of economic parasites, while the efforts of the
other group produce all the wealth.
In this system, it is patently obvious who commands and who obeys. The people are not
the “government,” by any stretch of the imagination, and it requires profound denial to
believe otherwise. But other myths are also used to try to make that lie sound rational.
For example, it is also claimed that “the government works for us; it is our servant.”
Again, such a statement does not even remotely match the obvious reality of the
situation; it is little more than a cult mantra, a delusion intentionally programmed into the
populace in order to twist their view of reality. And most people never even question it.
Most never wonder, if “government” works for us, if it is our employee, why does it
decide how much we pay it? Why does our “employee” decide what it will do for us?
Why does our “employee” tell us how to live our lives? Why does our “employee”
demand our obedience for whatever arbitrary commands it issues, sending armed
enforcers after us if we disobey? It is impossible for “government” to ever be the servant,
because of what “government” is, To put it in simple, personal terms, if someone can
boss you around and take your money, he is not your servant; and if he cannot do those
things, he is not “government.” However limited, “government” is the organization
thought to have the right to forcibly control the behavior of its subjects via “laws,”
rendering the popularly accepted rhetoric about “public servants” completely ridiculous.
To imagine that a ruler could ever be the servant of those over whom he rules is patently
absurd. Yet that impossibility is spouted as indisputable gospel in “civics” classes.
An even more prevalent lie, used to try to hide the master-slave relationship between
“government” and the public, is the notion of “representative government.” The claim is
that the people, by electing certain individuals into positions of power, are “choosing
their leaders” and that those in office are merely representing the will of the people.
Again, not only does this claim not at all match reality, but the underlying abstract theory
is inherently flawed as well.
In the real world, so-called “representative governments” are constantly doing things
their subjects do not want them to do: increasing “taxes,” engaging in warmongering,
selling off power and influence to whoever gives them the most money, and so on. Every
taxpayer can easily think of examples of things funded with his mane) that he objects to,
whether it be handouts to huge corporations, handouts to certain individuals, government
actions that infringe on individual rights, or just the overall wasteful, corrupt, inefficient
bureaucratic machine of “government.” There is no one who can honestly say that”
government” does everything that he wants and nothing that he does not want.
Even in theory, the concept of “representative government” is inherently flawed, because
“government” cannot possibly represent the people as a whole unless everyone wants
exactly the same thing. Because different people want “government” to do different
things, “government” will always be going against the will of at least some of the people.
Even if a “government” did exactly what a majority of its subjects wanted (which never
actually happens), it would not be serving the people as a whole; it would be forcibly
victimizing smaller groups on behalf of larger groups.
Furthermore, one who represents someone else cannot have more rights than the one he
represents. To wit, if one person has no right to break into his neighbor’s house and steal
his valuables, then he also has no right to designate a representative to do that for him, To
represent someone is to act on his behalf, and a true representative can only do what the
person he represents has the right to do. But in the case of “government,” the people
whom the politicians claim to represent have no right to do anything that politicians do:
impose “taxes,” enact “laws,” etc. Average citizens have no right to forcibly control the
choices of their neighbors, tell them how to live their lives, and punish them if they
disobey, So when a “government” does such things, it is not representing anyone or
anything but itself.
Interestingly, even those who talk about “representative government” refuse to accept any
personal responsibility for actions taken by those for whom they voted. If their candidate
of choice enacts a harmful “law,” or raises “taxes,” or wages war, the voters never feel
the same guilt or shame they would feel if they themselves had personally done such
things, or had hired or instructed someone else to do such things. This fact demonstrates
that even the most enthusiastic voters do not actually believe the rhetoric about
“representative government,” and do not view politicians as their representatives. The
terminology does not match reality, and the only purpose of the rhetoric is to obfuscate
the fact that the relationship between every “government” and its subjects is the same as
the relationship between a master and a slave. One master may whip his slaves less
severely than another; one master may allow his slaves to keep more of what they
produce; one master may take better care of his slaves – but none of that changes the
basic, underlying nature of the master-slave relationship. The one with the right to rule is
the master; the one with the obligation to obey is the slave. And that is true even when
people choose to describe the situation using inaccurate rhetoric and deceptive
euphemisms, such as “representative government,” “consent of the governed,” and “will
of the people.”
The notion of “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” while it
makes nice feel-good political rhetoric, is a logical impossibility. A ruling class cannot
serve or represent those it rules any more than a slave owner can serve or represent his
slaves. The only way he could do so is by ceasing to be a slave owner, by freeing his
slaves. Likewise, the only way a ruling class could become a servant of the people is by
ceasing to be a ruling class, by relinquishing all of its power. “Government” cannot serve
the people unless it ceases to be “government.”
Another example of irrational statist doctrine is the concept of the “rule of law.” The idea
is that rule by mere men is bad, because it serves those with a malicious lust for power,
while the “rule of law,” as the theory goes, is all about objective, reasonable rules being
imposed upon humanity equally. A moment’s thought reveals the absurdity of this myth.
Despite the fact that “the law” is often spoken of as some holy infallible set of rules
spontaneously flowing from the nature of the universe, in reality “the law” is simply a
collection of commands issued and enforced by the people in “government.” There would
be a difference between “rule of law” and “rule of men” only if the so-called “laws” were
written by something other than men.