The Most Dangerous Superstition

Reply to AntonioP
So, what do you think about it? Maybe you could quote what was particularly meaningful to you.

I don't see any realistic alternative to political authority. There are billions of people living close together. There are no longer many places to run off to if you don't like the way things are going. Just about everywhere you go there is another political authority waiting.

What does Rose suggest?

Reply to AntonioP Sounds like a standard libertarian, anti-governmental screed. Rose is a high profile anti-tax protester. Personally I think we should abolish human beings. Have you read about the harm these creatures have done - even before the birth of government - the tyranny, the unprovoked aggression and countless evils....

"American libertarian and tax protestor. Larken Rose was sentenced to 15 months in prison for willful failure to file income tax returns in five years in which the government alleged that his income was approximately $500,000. He was released from prison in December 2006."

https://www.readthistwice.com/author/larken-rose

Quoting AntonioP

in which he argues that the belief in political authority, or the institution of government, is the most dangerous superstition people have been taught.

Sounds like typical conservative/libertarian ideological propaganda. If the remedy is anarchy, or Citizens Militia's carrying AR-15's and ready to shoot 'tyrants', or 'sovereign citizens' who don't believe that laws and taxes apply to them, then count me out.

I mean, it completely misrepresents the idea of representative democracy, which is based on informed consent. We designate representatives to enact laws to maintain order, and so on. Depicting that as slavery or involuntary submission is a dangerous falsehood in my view.

Reply to Tom Storm :lol:

Reply to Wayfarer :up:

Reply to Wayfarer Tell that to the 'tax is theft' mob. :wink:

Reply to Tom Storm they'd probably shoot me.

Reply to Wayfarer At least it will be quick...

Quoting Paine

So, what do you think about it? Maybe you could quote what was particularly meaningful to you.

If I tried, the quote would probably be missing context, since the arguments in the book are tied together and make more sense as a whole. Either way, I agree with his main argument that the idea of political authority is illegitimate.

Quoting Tom Storm

?AntonioP Sounds like a standard libertarian, anti-governmental screed.

And this sounds like an ad hominem fallacy. You have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into believing the institution of government is good that you get angry at even the suggestion that this might not be the case.

Quoting Wayfarer

I mean, it completely misrepresents the idea of representative democracy, which is based on informed consent. We designate representatives to enact laws to maintain order, and so on. Depicting that as slavery or involuntary submission is a dangerous falsehood in my view.

You can call voting "consenting", but why would you consent to allowing politicians to write and pass whichever laws they feel like? That is what "representative democracy" actually is. They have the final say in what laws they pass, and you have to obey them even if you disagree with them. You are okay with voting for your own subjugation?

Some of the posts in this thread make me think of how those who supported the idea of having a king or monarchy sounded, denouncing those who rejected the king's right to rule as "dangerous" and "crazy". In the end, monarchies still lost their power and faded away.

Quoting AntonioP

You can call voting "consenting", but why would you consent to allowing politicians to write and pass whichever laws they feel like?

You wouldn't. You'd vote them out. Of course you're never going to have a situation where all people like all the laws, but it's the 'least worst option'. And that kind of cynical misrepresentation is far more likely to lead to an autocracy than representative democracy is.

Reply to Wayfarer By voting to give them power in the first place, you are agreeing to give them the power to potentially outlaw future elections. You would be at their mercy, so your solution of voting them out is being hopeful at best.

Quoting AntonioP

The Most Dangerous Superstition is a book written by Larken Rose, in which he argues that the belief in political authority, or the institution of government, is the most dangerous superstition people have been taught. He uses examples of the countless evils that have been committed in the name of political "authority" and the "law", such as genocides, acts of aggression like unprovoked wars, and oppression.

Mr. Rose also makes the argument that the belief in political authority/the institution of government is a superstition because no one can legitimately wield political authority, as no one has the right to rule or forcibly control another as if he or she were his slave.

Does he discuss a better social structure than political authority? If not, then his criticism may be true but it's not actionable. Simply eliminating all political authority would be a disaster. Does he describe a better system?

Quoting AntonioP

And this sounds like an ad hominem fallacy. You have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into believing the institution of government is good that you get angry at even the suggestion that this might not be the case.

Perhaps you've been so thoroughly indoctrinated into thinking anything not anti-government is bad that you imagine I must be aggrieved. It was just an observation. 'Indoctrinated'? 'Angry'? Sounds more like you're doing the ad hominem's around here. Which is alright by me, I'm not the gatekeeper of tone.

Quoting AntonioP

By voting to give them power in the first place, you are agreeing to give them the power to potentially outlaw future elections. You would be at their mercy, so your solution of voting them out is being hopeful at best.

And the only realistic hope. They would be at our mercy, expressed at the ballot box. And up until January 6 2021 in the US, there had never been any serious attempt to thwart the transfer of political power. Odd how libertarians are most likely to support the one guy who had a serious shot at overturning democracy.

Without democratic assent, how to make any kind of collective decision? You know, how to run railroads, hospitals, spend public money? If it was all up to individuals to make those decisions, then who gets to make them? The one with the most weapons? The loudest voice?

There's only one party here that's been duped, and it ain't me.

Quoting AntonioP

?AntonioP Sounds like a standard libertarian, anti-governmental screed.
— Tom Storm

And this sounds like an ad hominem fallacy.

You clearly don't know what "ad hominem" means. Wikipedia:

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

It's clear that @Tom Storm's comment was about your argument and not about you.

Quoting AntonioP

You have been so thoroughly indoctrinated

Now this is an ad hominem argument. Ironic.

Reply to AntonioP
May I request that when the OP mentions a book or article or essay, that to include at least a passage from that reading?

Reply to AntonioP

Note that no one can do anything other than pooh-pooh his criticisms and try to attack his character as if they knew the guy, and all to defend a system in which they pretend they have some modicum of control. It’s knee jerk, like he was saying something about their mom.

I think it’s a good book. The superstition is obvious. None of which critics say is even physically true, let alone logically. They pretend politicians represent them, as if a person they’ve never conversed with, nor ever would, was somehow able to grasp their concerns. It’s all true to them by sheer force of repetition, or ritual, or whatever else it takes the superstitious to begin to believe nonsense.

Quoting AntonioP

Mr. Rose also makes the argument that the belief in political authority/the institution of government is a superstition because no one can legitimately wield political authority, as no one has the right to rule or forcibly control another as if he or she were his slave.

What happens in the absence of a constituted government? The biggest, meanest bully puts himself in charge - and he doesn't care about rights.

Quoting NOS4A2

The superstition is obvious.

Yup. Money is just as much a superstition. Is money a superstition that you want to give up?

Quoting praxis

Is money a superstition that you want to give up?

I do! I do! So does Larken Rose, since currency is issued and regulated by government. In case he wants to rethink his position, I recommend a reading of Lord of the Flies.

Reply to praxis

Money is just a medium of exchange. We could use jumping beans if it makes you feel better.

Rose is absolutely right.

Structures of political control are, at their very best, a necessary evil, and they need to be questioned and mistrusted at every turn. One need not look very far in our history to understand why.

These structures are by nature piloted by the worst mankind has to offer, and responsible for the worst excesses mankind has known. They rely solely on coercion, and are especially prone to corruption the larger and less transparent they become.

In discussions on this forum I have often been confronted by just how far acceptance for such a rotten concept have nested in society, to the point where it's nearly impossible for people to admit that something as simple as law is completely predicated on coercion (ergo, threats of violence).


At it's core, political structures are a manifestation of man's desire to control others. At the individual level we would immediately recognize this as an immoral desire. Ironically, at the macro-level, there where such desires can produce the most harm, we consider it completely normal.

A dangerous idea indeed.


Democracy and ideas of 'legitimate' government are the culprits, I believe. They produce a facade of participation and fairness, when in reality they are scarcely better than the feudal systems they so readily condemn (and through the process of corruption have a tendency to degenerate back into that very same state).

It's much easier to recognize oppression when the rulers are wearing crowns and sitting on gilded thrones. By masking the dynamics of power, ideas of 'legitimate government' have expanded the power of the monarchs while lullling the public to sleep.

Quoting NOS4A2

We could use jumping beans if it makes you feel better.

Right, WE have to agree on the “superstition”. Why is it okay to agree on a medium of exchange but not on a political representative or institutions of a state?

Political authority is derived from the fundamental concept of hierarchy, that there is something higher than something else. Say A is higher than B, then A has every right to control B. To deny political authority is to deny hierarchy, it is to accept that everything is exactly the same and identical to one another. This is not necessarily false, but it is to accept that there is only one thing and one thing only.

Quoting AntonioP

Mr. Rose also makes the argument that the belief in political authority/the institution of government is a superstition because no one can legitimately wield political authority, as no one has the right to rule or forcibly control another as if he or she were his slave.

It's about consentual bdsm. Consenting to have someone else bind you in a system of rules and govern your life, dominate your social and political capabilities and conventions on your behalf, hopefully with your best interests at heart - safety/security, enjoyment, medicine, luxury and entertainment all available and close at hand, and this is done by election/will of the many.

That is not slavery to a system, but informed consent. Democracy. Especially when any citizen is free to campaign to become the master/dominatrix - presidency, prime ministry etc.

So long as there is a choice to live outside the system, or "off the grid", then passive or active participation and contribution to society is by consent.

If one is not happy with societies rules and structure. They are free to live self-sustainably. You can squat, live peripherally or nomadically (like itinerants, amish, romani or other marginal communities left to their own devices) or further still camp out in the most isolated unpopulated regions, grow your own food, collect your own firewood and make your own remedies, textiles etc. Free from money, taxes, and the law to pretty much the largest degree possible. Unknown, difficult to access communes.

There are many uninhabited islands and regions in the world, and several of them in dispute over nationality or ownership, and despite that, should one survive there they will never encounter any opposition from any authority.

Quoting NOS4A2

Money is just a medium of exchange. We could use jumping beans if it makes you feel better.

It doesn't matter what the coinage looks like; any medium of exchange, in order to be generally accepted and used, needs an issuing agency that can standardize, valuate and regulate its.

Why is it necessary to assume that all governance is control by other people? Why should the organization of social, co-operative and mutually beneficial activities be left to the bullies? Why can it not be consensual protection against the bullies who will always try to take over?

Property is the first superstition. Property rights are what government is built on. As the man said "Render unto the federal government that which has the federal government seal upon it" - that eye in the pyramid thingy, or whatever.

Libertarians do tend to forget that the privacy of their estates, large or small, are a fiction maintained by government.

Reply to unenlightened :up:

I’ll add the associated superstition that workers are free and equal parties to their employment contracts, rather than coerced by and subordinate to those who own and control private property.

Reply to unenlightened

Colonization is a fiction too because tribes had no governments and thus nothing could be stolen.

Quoting NOS4A2

Colonization is a fiction too because tribes had no governments and thus nothing could be stolen.

Of course, theft is a corollary of property, as is government.Hence the anti-government slogan, "Property is theft." Property is necessarily appropriated from the commons — what is appropriated to personal use and control, everyone else is deprived of the use and control of. That is the process of colonisation.

Reply to Wayfarer :up: Seems odd (to me) that people keep missing the obvious

paraphrasing whoever it was:Undoubtedly, democracy isn't all that good. However, the rest are worse.

I like what George Carlin said, something to the effect
"We have over thirty options for ice cream, but two choices for president".

Belief in political authority is not a superstition which by definition is belief in supernatural entities or causes. Political authority is an abstract concept but isn't a superstition except with rare exceptions of divine right or theocracies. Most political authority arises from secular reasons like security and efficiency. You can have social experiments of anarchy, libertarianism, communism, democracy, etc. where all are equal and no one has power over anyone else. But the experiments always break down for larger groups in the face of real world problems. Hierarchies organically emerge such as to defend against military threats from outside the group, or to deal with trouble makers within the group. No particular political system is inevitable but in large groups some political system is inevitable.

I would argue instead that monotheism is the most dangerous superstition because it fosters the belief in absolutes which can justify even the worst atrocities. One could argue that this applies to any sort of dogma or ideology, if fervently believed in enough, but those things are man-made and it is only when it believed to be from a higher power that it becomes absolute and unquestionable. Just think of the horrors of the inquisition, with all of the ingenious torture devices that were invented, all for the purpose of saving the souls of the heretics.

Reply to GRWelsh
What we have around the world appears to be a plutocracy.
The rich control the governments in every nation, don't they?
The middle and lower classes, at best get to decide which rich people get the power.

Religion is also governed by the rich.

If we would all just follow the money whenever a political discussion came up, it could save a lot of time.

Reply to GRWelsh

Good to see you GRW.

While leftists, of which I consider myself quite sympathetic, will, correctly point out that corporations are extremely dangerous too, I do think the OP has some merit.

As far as I can see, state religion by way of blind nationalism, is surely among the highest dangers we face as a species, just like the we have the right in the US praising red, white and blue, so too will Russian nationalists support Russia and Israeli nationalists support Israel, and "belief in country", whatever that could possibly mean, is strong enough to bring down the world in nuclear apocalypse.

All the worse because the idea of "supporting a country", whatever the country is, is one of the most nebulous ideas I can think of, it barely has a coherent meaning.

Reply to wonderer1 Good to see you, too, wonderer! I was not enjoying the new Reasonable Faith forum format at KnowWhyYouBelieve and was looking for a new place online to have philosophical discussions and someone suggested The Philosophy Forum, so here I am! Recently, I was thinking of how when I first started to post online it was the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, and that was 25 years ago!

Recently, I was thinking of how when I first started to post online it was the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, and that was 25 years ago!

Reply to GRWelsh

It's interesting that both of us have been reminiscing similarly. We were at RFForums for a looong time. I was recently thinking of my internet history going back to before most people (outside of DARPA and various engineers and computer scientist) had ever heard of the internet. My interests at the time were more sexual than secular though, and in those early days I spent most of my internet discussion time on the Usenet group soc.singles.

Reply to HarryHarry It seems we could have two responses to this. First, we could say euphemistically that "every form of a government is a plutocracy" since the wealthy almost always have a disproportionate amount of influence in government regardless of the system. The other response would adhere to the technical definitions and say an actual plutocracy is only a political system in which the wealthy rule by the way the system is formally defined (i.e. you have to be wealthy as a pre-requisite to be eligible to serve in government as outlined in the law, constitution, etc.). And I don't know if there are or ever have been any political systems like that.

Reply to GRWelsh

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_qualification

Property qualification seems like an example of your latter scenario.

Reply to GRWelsh

Herbert Spencer has a great little essay on this called The Great Political Superstition[sup]1[/sup]. He makes the decisive case that political authority is nonsense.

To paraphrase, the belief in the political authority of men is just as superstitious as the belief in the authority of God because there is no natural justification for either.

Given the premise of the divine right of kings, that the king was god-appointed, there is at least the logical conclusion that no bounds can be set on political authority. But for modern political authority no such premise exists.

Since the divine right of kings, philosophers have tried to invent justifications like the social contract, where we came together “organically” in order to give up our freedoms to the sovereignty of some autocrat. Nowhere in history can we find evidence of this. But all we have done is rejected in name the doctrines which we now hold in fact. We retained the substance, posture, and hierarchies of the divine right of kings after we have abandoned the form. Now we’re left to wonder why we must submit to a group of men which has no naturally or supernaturally-derived authority.

1. Spencer, Man Vs. The State, p. 123 https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/330/0020_Bk.pdf

Quoting GRWelsh

The other response would adhere to the technical definitions and say an actual plutocracy is only a political system in which the wealthy rule by the way the system is formally defined

As far as I know the word 'plutocracy' does not refer to a formal system of government, which may be why you nor I know of any examples of formal plutocracies in the present or in history.
Except for the richest folk, who would willingly, consciously, support a formal plutocracy? The richest would have to convince people that wealth is an indicator of wisdom and virtue, wouldn't they?

On the psychological layer of life, I see humanity at large as controlled by fear, which manifest as "flight", submitting to authorities, or as "fight", seeking to dominate or be the authority.

Reply to wonderer1 Property qualification is a good example for the discussion. Still, it is worth making a distinction between a plutocracy meaning "rule by the rich" and property qualification meaning a prerequisite of a certain amount or kind of wealth in order to be eligible to participate in the political system. Another example that might be feudalism where only royalty and nobility can own land and the serfs can only work the land. The oddity in feudalism is how it can develop over time so that some nobles can retain their titles and yet lose their wealth, and commoners like a rising middle class of merchants or guildsmen can acquire wealth, so even that isn't a perfect match for plutocracy.

Reply to NOS4A2 Quoting NOS4A2

Now we’re left to wonder why we must submit to a group of men which has no naturally or supernaturally-derived authority.

Probably because politics is the only game in town. The alternative is anarchy, which doesn't work for large groups. There is a reason anarchy has a negative connotation. A consequence of not having a political authority is not having any laws. You can't have laws without an authority to enact and enforce them. Try to live in a lawless society where everyone does what they want since no one else has any authority to stop them or punish them. A lawless and anarchic society won't be able to organize as effectively against outside threats, either. It will be vulnerable to threats from both within and without. It is simply not feasible or sustainable. As social creatures, we can't get away from political authority developing -- all we can do is try to develop the least offensive version.

Reply to GRWelsh

Laws have been quite terrible and oppressive throughout history. So I’m not convinced they’re necessary, let alone to be desired. They are often enforced with brutality; they’re often unjust; they often serve only those in power. That’s to say nothing about the wars, genocide, slavery, colonialism, conscription, segregation, and plunder—all of it at the whim of some political coterie. I’ll pass.

We can get away from political authority developing. Though it’s true that they’re present, a vast majority of people interact with each other everyday without any authority intervening.