From [HERE] After returning from a trip to Walmart earlier this year, Elayshia Boey was pulled over in her own driveway in McCracken County, Kentucky, for having a broken taillight.

Within moments, Boey, a 24-year-old pregnant woman, was "face-planted" into a cruiser and pinned to the ground by a sheriff's deputy, "with his knee planted in her back, crushing her, and her unborn child, beneath his full weight," according to a federal lawsuit.

In addition, Deputy Jon Hayden, who threatened to use a Taser against Boey, is accused of taking her to jail instead of the hospital, even though she was bleeding from her head and complaining of pain.

Only after a jail nurse refused to admit Boey — because of her injuries and being six months pregnant — did the deputy take her to an emergency room, according to the suit filed in April.

Attorney James Russell, who represents Boey with co-counsel Michael Smith, said Hayden approached the stop in "an aggressive fashion" that is not typical for a minor traffic offense. [MORE]

STATIST DELUSION. Here is where all statist’s [republicans and democrats] get lost, asking shit like ‘was the use of force appropriate?’ and/or ‘it was too much force for a tail light!’

In reality, the so-called “right” to attack people is evil regardless of whether it is done lawfully by persons having “authority” or done unlawfully by criminals. Acts that would be considered unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by people are just as unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by government agents. The fact that the white man in the video had on a blue costume and another, higher, authority granted him “authority” to be police makes no difference - you are rationalizing away your own slavery if you believe otherwise.

To be clear, all persons have the natural right to defend themselves and come to the defense of others if they believe another person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. Private security workers and guards also work under said natural law.

In contrast police officers also have the extra or additional “power” to act as offensively as aggressors; the right to attack people or initiate unprovoked acts of violence against people whenever they deem it necessary. Police are said to have such powers when they are acting on behalf of “authority.” As such, “citizens” police are permitted to lawfully attack (make arrests) people, touch them against their will, assault them, interfere with freedoms in many ways, kidnap people (detain and transport) or imprison them because higher authorities have empowered them to do so. In turn, people are said to have a moral and legal obligation to obey police commands and have no right to even resist an unlawful arrest in most states.

The problem is that there is no rational basis for authority. Authority, the basis for all governments and rulership, is a farce. Government “authority” can be summed up as the implied right to rule over people. It is the government’s ability and moral right to forcibly control citizens, its right to be obeyed and the citizen’s corresponding moral and legal obligation to obey.’ Authority requires that government’s laws, commands and orders to be obeyed on a content-neutral basis (regardless of whether they agree or not.) [MORE] Michael Huemer defines political authority as “the hypothesized moral property in virtue of which governments may coerce people in certain ways not permitted to anyone else and in virtue of which citizens must obey governments in situations in which they would not be obligated to obey anyone else.” Said hypothesized moral property makes government the supreme authority over human affairs.

Authority has no meaning in reality because it does not come from people nor is it derived from any natural source. All governmental power allegedly comes exclusively from the people. Citizens delegate their individual power to government and it’s representatives for them to represent citizens. Such representation works much in the same way agents represent their principals in all kinds of business or other contractual relationships. For instance, a manager at McDonalds represents the owner of McDonalds when she carries out the owners business everyday ordering inventory and hiring workers, etc. She is the agent, the owners are the principals. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her. For instance, you grant the babysitter access and power to use your living room but not the basement. And it goes without saying that an agent cannot have more power than the principal because all said power originated exclusively from the principal.

Inexplicably, the government has granted itself the authority to do things that no individual could do. While citizens have the inalienable right to act in self-defense or come to the defense of others, citizens have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on other people and no right to forcibly control other people. As such, it is logically impossible for citizens to delegate the right to forcibly control others to the government - because citizens cannot possibly delegate rights that they don’t have. In other words, if you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then you cannot delegate or authorize anyone else acting on your behalf to do so. Clearly for example, 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?

Larken Rose explains, ‘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.’ As stated, it is a logical and legal impossibility for a representative to have more power than the person he is representing. Larken Rose explains, “you can’t give someone something you don’t have.” There is nothing complicated about this. Rose states;

“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. And that self-evident truth, all by itself, demolishes any possibility of legitimate “government.”

Rose explains if those in “government” have only those rights possessed by those who elected them, then “government” loses the one ingredient that makes it “government”: the right to rule over others (”authority”). If it has the same rights and powers as everyone else, there is no reason to call it “government.” If the politicians have no more rights than you have, all of their demands and commands, all of their political rituals, “law” books, courts, and so on, amount to nothing more than the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis. Nothing they do can have any legitimacy, any more than if you did the same thing on your own, unless they somehow acquired rights that you do not have. And that is impossible, since no one on earth, and no group of people on earth, could possibly have given them such superhuman rights.”

The point here is not a theoretical discussion about the purpose of government or history of government or how it should run. Rather, the question is - for what reasons does one man (or government) have supreme authority over another? Although explanation and justification for the right to rule is necessary, none exists.

Other commonly asserted basis for authority have been thoroughly debunked and at this point are mythology:

MAJORITY RULE. Is government authority justified or made legitimate if a majority of people support it? Rose explains that the above stated clogic concerning representation doesn’t get stronger when you add more people to the mix.

To claim that a majority can bestow upon someone a right which none of the individuals in that majority possess is just as irrational as claiming that three people, none of whom has a car or money to buy a car, can give a car to someone else.

Additionally, as 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. "Three 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 obligated 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, individuals have contractually agreed to obey the government and must do so and the government is obliged to provide services and protection. However, 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. Therefore, there is no contract and no social contract exists.

At any rate, the so called “public duty” doctrine renders the “social contract theory” meaningless. The Supreme Court has explained the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. [MORE] and [MORE]. This means for instance, police departments and their officers have no legal duty to protect any particular person. Courts throughout the nation have upheld and expanded on what is known as the “public duty doctrine.” Specifically, with regard to police protection services, governments and their agents have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence by other private parties unless the victim was in government custody. [MORE] and [MORE] This means that police cannot be sued for any federal constitutional claim for an alleged failure to protect citizens unless they were in government custody. Despite reality concealment by puppeticians and their Dependent Media, the public duty doctrine is a legal reality that, as explained by the DC Court of Appeals, is “well established” throughout the nation. Most recently in the so-called Parkland “mass shooting” a failure to protect children was claimed and then dismissed without controversy. A federal court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims concerning a failure to protect.

With regard to the social contract undeceiver Michael Huemer states, ‘Given the wide and indefinite range of laws that might be created by the state and the range of punishments to which one might be subjected for violating them, an individual’s concessions to the state under the social contract are quite large. The state, in turn, is supposed to assume an obligation to the citizen, to enforce the citizen’s rights, including protecting the citizen from criminals and hostile foreign governments.’ Although ‘protection from crime is the most central and widely recognized function of the state,’ under the public duty doctrine the state has no obligation to protect individuals from crime and no circumstances exist that count as failing to meet the obligation. Under the social contract theory, citizens are theoretically contractually obliged to obey all laws and commands and when they fail to do so the government can punish them, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but to no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it? Huemer states, ‘one cannot maintain that the individual owes duties to the state but that the state owes nothing to the individual.’ Thus, the social contract theory do not legitimize authority, the government’s implied right to forcibly control people and its right to be obeyed.

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. Like a plantation system, there is no way to opt out and avoid being subject to another authority

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 still 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. Said theory means governments own all land and property everywhere government exists. According to such clogic 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]

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.”

It is also obviously circular thinking to say ‘the government has authority over everything and everybody because it has authority over everything and everybody’ - such statement may indeed be the case but it cannot be a justification for the legitimacy of authority in the first place.

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]

It should also go without saying but there is no magic ceremony, voting process or magic statements (oaths) which can grant certain people extra-human powers to rule over people, exempt them from morality, accountability and do things which no individual or group of individuals can do.

Therefore, there is no rational basis for authority, the implied right to rule over others. No person(s) or entity has the right to rule over other human beings. Michael Huemer explains, “political authority is an illusion: no one has the right to rule, and no one is obliged to obey a command merely because it comes from their government.”

FUNKTIONARY explains Authority “has no meaning in reality.” “Only you have authority over your Self…anything else, i.e., to accept any authority external to one’s Self once of discriminating age, is the very definition of irresponsibility. There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.” Dr. Blynd explains that authority is a cartoon because it is like a drawing of something that has no existence. Like Santa or The Green Latern, Authority is a mere belief in people’s minds; no one is supreme over anyone.

Consequently, all governments, no matter how they are characterized, are illegitimate because they are organizations imagined to posses “authority.” Without a legitimate basis, all such rulership is based on mind control and/or force.

As explained in FUNKTIONARY, government is control of the mind and “authority is the means by which society uses to control its population.” Trent Goodbaudy calls authority a “statist delusion.” He states, “We are stuck in an illusory construct that only exists in a diseased psyche. There really are no rulers and no masters anyway; just claims of authority, and acceptance of these claims by the brainwashed. There really is no government other than what you choose to be governed by: they only have the authority that you grant them.”

The statist delusion or mind control maintains the illusion that citizen and government relations are free, voluntary and consensual. Yet reality utterly destroys these legal truths. “Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. As stated by FUNKTIONARY, Official “government” is disorganized, politicized; centralized; canonized and revered initiation of force, but it is no less initiation of force and coercion than any unofficial singular action of the same offensive or violent content.” It states, “While there are varying degrees, “government” very simply is “one man violently controlling the life and property of another man.” Governmental rule based on authority (and there is no other kind at this point in history) cannot be voluntary or consensual.

Nevertheless, it must be understood that when manufactured consent or mind control fails, the true nature of government reveals itself; brute force or the force continuum. "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -John Jay, Castilian Days II, 1872 quoted in FUNKTIONARY.

As the pregnant Black woman experienced in her interaction with a white cop in the video (and many others who discover the bounds of their “freedom”), all government services are compulsory. Robert Paul Wolf explained, obedience to authority is not a matter of doing what an authority tells you to do. It is a matter of doing what he tells you to do because he tells you to do it. Citizens are presented with a false choice; you can either comply with government commands or face death, jail or a lesser sanction.

Citizens in systems of authority are made to believe that their compliance is voluntary but the entire legal system is anchored in physical coercion (violence). Such rationalized consent is a placebo to make the citizens living experience feel better. In reality, as explained by Rose, Every so-called “law” enacted by politicians is a command, backed by the threat of violence against those who do not obey.” An individual can choose not to comply with a law or an order, which will subsequently lead to another order/command or threat of a worse sanction, but in all governmental systems, at the end of the chain of orders or worsening sanctions comes a threat that the violator cannot defy. “The system as a whole must be anchored by a nonvoluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices. That anchor is provided by physical force.” Huemer explains, “One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it. Thus, the legal system is founded on intentional, harmful coercion.’

The fact that individuals may not exempt themselves from governmental rule or choose to opt out of receiving government services is more proof that there is no free, voluntary association with those claiming to possess authority. The new government is Afghanistan provides a good example: people living there have no right to reject their new government; new authoritarians took over and replaced the old ones and now they are the government. Citizens can flee the country to another “jurisdiction” where they will then be subject to the authoritarians who claim to have authority there. Huemer states, “every human being is born under this subjection and has no practical means of escaping it.” FUNKTIONARY explains the attempted refusal of services of those in power or any effort made by an individual to deny that they are subject to government authority is deemed “disobedient” in the lex-icon. FUNKTIONARY explains that in general, “disobedience is the only crime—all others are offshoots.”

In reality, persons do not actually live under “democracies” or “republics” or monarchies or dictatorships. Said descriptions or characterizations are designed to conceal the reality of an elite ruling class and the master/servant relations it has with its citizens. In the United States and everywhere else government exists, Rose 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. 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. For example, it is also claimed that “the government works for us; it is our servant.” Again, such statements 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.”

Rather as explained in FUNKTIONARY, it is more accurate to describe such systems as “free range plantations” or “free range prisons.” The inhabitants are “free range slaves” or “free range prisoners.” FUNKTIONARY observes there are different brands and flavors of “government” across the ideological spectrum but all are free range prisons/plantations; some are more restrictive than others but all people within them are subject to authority, the force continuum. Slaves or prisoners in the Free Range Prison may face greater or lesser restrictions depending upon their income, status or race but none are free.

Whether individuals choose to be willing slaves (citizens) or unwilling slaves (denizens) depends upon how aware they are of their true reality and their response to it.

Nevertheless, there is no need to revolt against authority. It is only a belief that must be dropped. FUNKTIONARY states, ‘there are no tyrants only tyranny exists. How can one man or woman rule a multitude against their will except through mind-control and word-conditioning control?’

“The real threat to "authority" is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property.” FUNKTIONARY explains, “We don’t violently overthrow government, rather we silently and organically outgrow it in its current form as we know it. Where there is no energy for conflict upon which to feed, it starves itself into oblivion or becomes malnourished to the point of ineffectual irrelevance.”

Where a critical mass of individuals see authority for what it is – an irrational, self-contradictory and evil granfalloon, contrary to civilization and morality that “constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed”- they will drop it like a wooden coin or not consume it like an unwanted vaccine.