Did You Consent to Authoritarians Having Absolute Power Over You? Video Catches White Rialto Cops Choke-Slam a Small, Black Teen Girl to the Ground, Kneel on Her Neck Her During Torture Arrest

From [HERE] A Southern California police chief apologized to a Black teenage girl’s family for the outcome of an arrest in which one of his officers using force on their loved one. Apology is

The Rialto police officer was caught on camera after placing his hand on the 16-year-old’s neck and forcefully spinning her to the ground while trying to detain her for illegally riding her motorbike.

The police refuse to release the name of the “public servants” involved in order to protect the systems of RWS and authority, which are inherently unaccountable to people. While the officer has not been fired, the chief said that he has been placed on paid leave with full benefits.

TIME TO GROW UP FOLKS. Authority and freedom cannot co-exist. If a “public servant," such as a police officer, is uncontrollable, unaccountable, can’t be hired or fired by you, has irresponsible power over you and provides a compulsory “service” then he is actually your Master. Lysander Spooner, stated “It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?”

Apparently the right to do so comes from the government’s right to rule or its so-called authority. Allegedly governmental power comes from the people. That is, we delegate our individual power to the government for it to act on our behalf. However, it goes without saying that people cannot delegate powers or rights that they do not themselves possess. An agent or representative can only be authorized to hold the power of the principal. It is impossible for an agent to possess more power than the principal. If you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then how can you delegate or authorize anyone else acting on your behalf to do so? Your neighbor has no right to stop, search and detain you and put you into handcuffs, kidnap you and lock you in a basement for failing to comply with one his commands. So, how could your neighbor delegate a government representative the power to do so? if multiple neighbors got together and acted to detain and arrest you would such conduct by them be legitimate? Could the group of neighbors authorize their government representative to do something that they couldn’t do themselves? Could the group transfer powers it doesn’t have? Can you make a mirror out of a brick? Of course not. Where would the additional or extra power come from? Nevertheless that is exactly what most “civilized” governments claim provides the basis for their rulership over people.

Government “authority” can be summed up as the right to rule over people. It is the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have the moral obligation to obey.’ [MORE]. Lysander Spooner explained,

“it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess. They could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals.”

Similarly, undeceiver Larken Rose observes,

“Despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations, all modern belief in “government” rests on the notion that mere mortals can, through certain political procedures, bestow upon some people various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with. The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. There is no ritual or document through which any group of people can delegate to someone else a right which no one in the group possesses.‘

There is also no valid justification for authority, the right to rule over people. FUNKTIONARY defines authority as ‘a cartoon, an alleged image of the Law or the notion of an implied right and application of that "right" of individuals or groups of same to control or exercise external power over others, which has no meaning in reality.’ FUNKTIONARY explains that authority is a farce.” What justifies the government authorities’ extra-human powers to rule over people and do things which no individual or group of individuals can do?

MAJORITY RULE. Is government authority justified or made legitimate if a majority of people support it? Michael Huemer explains, “The fact that a majority of persons favor some rule does not justify imposing that rule by force on those who do not agree to it nor coercively punishing those who disobey the rule. To do so is, typically, to disrespect the dissenters and treat them as inferiors.” He states, “the will of a majority does not suffice to cancel or outweigh the rights of a minority. An action that is normally impermissible does not suddenly become alright merely because most people support it. Consider a hypothetical example, which I call the Democratic Dinner Party:

I go out for dinner with four students, At the end of the meal, there is a debate about how the bill should he divided up, a topic we have not previously discussed. I propose that each person should pay for the items that he or she ordered. "Ihree of the students, however, make the alternative proposal that I should be forced to pay for the entire meal, Since they are a majority, am I now morally obl~atsd to pay for their meals? And are they entitled to force me to do so? If I refuse, may they kidnap me and lock me in a cage?

No, I am not obligated to pay for everyone, and they are not entitled to force me to do so. This example shows that majority will does not cancel or outweigh individual rights. In this case, my right to my own money and my general liberty right are not canceled or outweighed merely because a majority of the group wants to take away my money or imprison me.

This example is on point because, again, what we need from a theory of political authority is an explanation for why the state should be entitled to engage in behavior that would be deemed to violate individual rights if performed by anyone other than the government. [MORE]

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY. How about the social contract theory - the idea that there is a contract between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws, in exchange for citizens obedience and taxes? That is, people agreed to obey the government and must do so. If such an agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? We were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet we are bound to obey authority.

As explained, by Larken Rose “Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else, “I agree to let you forcibly control me,” the moment the controller must force the “controllee” to do something, there is obviously no longer “consent.” Prior to that moment, there is no “governing” – only voluntary cooperation. Expressing the concept more precisely exposes its inherent schizophrenia: “I agree to let you force things upon me, whether I agree to them or not.””

IMPLICIT AGREEMENT. What about an implicit agreement to obey authority - where we are deemed from birth to have agreed to obey authority until we decline, opt out or reject it? This proposition is also an illusion because whether you reject or object to authority you must obey authority regardless. You have no real choice in the matter.

AGREEMENT BY ACCEPTING BENEFITS. Perhaps authority is made legitimate when citizens agree to accept the benefits provided by government, such as public schools or police “service?” For the same reasons no one has an implicit contract with the government, government authority is not made legitimate through acceptance of benefits. Whether a person accepts the benefits of government or not, all persons are subject to the laws and required to obey authority.

CONSENT BY PRESENCE. How about consent to authority by simply remaining in a particular location - consent by presence on the land? In other words, in order to remain on your own land then you must pay a government and obey laws to do so. Larken Rose explains, “To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.” This is also circular thinking in that saying the government has authority over everything and everybody cannot also be a justification for the legitimacy of such authority in the first place. At any rate according to such non-logic, as stated by Huemer, “Those seeking to avoid all governmental jurisdiction have three options: they may live in the ocean, move to Antarctica, or commit suicide.” [MORE]

CONSENT THRU PARTICIPATION. Finally, does consent through participation make government authority legitimate or valid? Not at all. “If you didn’t vote in the election, would you then not have to obey the laws made by whoever wins? Of course not. You will be subject to the same laws whether you vote or not.” [MORE]

Thus, authority is an illusion, an unreality. As explained by FUNKTIONARY “Authority is rule through coercion. It “is the means by which society uses to control its population.” Authority is a “cartoon” or an “image of law” because “people cannot delegate rights they do not have, which makes it impossible for anyone to acquire the right to rule (”authority”). People cannot alter morality, which makes the “laws” of “government” devoid of any inherent “authority.” Ergo, “authority”-the right to rule-cannot logically exist. The concept itself is self-contradictory, like the concept of a “militant pacifist.” A human being cannot have superhuman rights, and therefore no one can have the inherent right to rule.’ [MORE]