Express your opinion here!

                                    Checks & Balances
                                      ( yeah, right . . . !)

                                                                    by Bill Malloy

	The entire basis for "government" is authority. For "government" to exist it needs the right to rule. If it does not have that right, it is simply exercising brute force, and that means it is identical to a gang of thugs with a lot more weapons than anyone else. Most authoritarians will admit that what they want is the right to use unlimited force, even if they use terms like, "consent of the governed," and "limited authority." When confronted with the choice between a "government" that has no power to enforce its rule and a dictatorship, they will opt for the dictatorship, since they think the alternative is anarchy. They don't say they want dictatorship . . .they usually temper their rhetoric saying things like, "most people would rather have a limited authority than violence in the streets, thugs plundering their homes, desecration and disorder . . ." They sneak in that "limited authority" business, ignoring the fact that that is what they don’t want, and cannot possibly have and still have a "government" that can actually enforce the law. My mother used to call them the give-'em-an-inch-and-they'll-take-a-mile club. Once a belief in "authority" is established in the target population, there is no reason for anyone who claims to have it to limit it in any way, lest someone else with the notion of "unlimited" authority take his place. Anyone who claims the "authority" to rule others, and has the means to do so, no longer is limited by anything. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking at best, and delusional at worst. Do you think the Native Americans view the United States as a "limited authority"? How about the Vietnamese? Shouldn't there be a set of rules delineating what limits "government" must conform to? Isn't that the constitution, for those who believe in "limited government"? What constitutional authority allowed the president to bomb people in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Iraq, Grenada, Cuba, Cambodia, or Libya? Those are acts of war. War is the express business of congress, according to the rules this "limited government" is supposedly required to conform to. That's obviously not the only violation of the "limits" on the right to rule, either. The constitution says the United States is only to legislate over the District of Columbia and forts and other real estate the United States owns. It obviously has taken more than just a mile from the inch it was originally authorized. Let's look at what "authority" really is: the right to rule. The first definition in the dictionary that refers to political authority is 2 a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior b : freedom granted by one in authority : RIGHT     Now, the dictionary definition is a little circular, as is often the case. It is also contradictory to call authority “power to influence” and “freedom granted”. If someone has the power to override your judgment, he doesn’t need your “consent.” If he doesn’t, he isn’t “government.” Part of the problem lies in the definition of the word “right”. The closest definition the dictionary provides is, 2 : a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled [Merriam-Webster]. That begs the question though, as well. Who entitles, or bestows the privilege? I propose a simple definition of the word “right” : the exercise of one’s own judgment. Now, to someone conditioned in the belief of “government”, that may sound like it leaves out any consideration of what other people’s rights are. However, no one exercises his own judgment in a vacuum, disregarding the likely effect his behavior will have on others without serious detriment to his long-term survival, and in some cases his immediate personal safety. That’s what “good” judgment is: the balancing of one’s own interests with respect to the interests of others. That can be further broken down into short-term/long-term, and even the valued personal relationship he might have with friends and family. A self-governing human being does not threaten his interests by completely disregarding the likely responses of others to his own actions. If he did, he would have to deal with the inevitable responsibility for causing those reactions. If he accepts that responsibility, then no one can stop him from trying, even if those actions might threaten someone else; they can only try to stop him from succeeding. Authority cannot be exercised by anything other than human beings. Therefore, each person who calls himself “authority” must assume the right to exercise “the power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior” -- in other words, to order people around. So, authority is the exercise of one’s own judgment to order people around. This is all the “right to rule,” or “authority,” means. One person deciding on his own that he is it. Authoritarians know that most people don’t buy that crap anymore. So, the entire cult of “government” is an attempt to condition people to believe the opposite, namely that they rule themselves, with certain -- ahem -- “limitations.” Who does the limiting? “Government,” of course. Without ever having to explain the mechanics of how this legerdemain works, authoritarians go right into explaining the operation of this fictitious entity as if it were as ubiquitous and essential as air, and most people never question the basic assumption. For a comparison, think about the assumptions made by a child when his parents talk about Santa Claus. They may ask where Santa Claus comes from, and what he does, and be satisfied with the answers (little kids know instinctively not to look a gift horse in the mouth). They don’t usually ask for a whole lot of proof. Sooner or later the scam is unmasked, and the kid learns the truth. I wonder how long he would have accepted the existence of Santa Claus without proof if Santa were a big mean guy who stole toys and beat up little kids (which would be a closer analogy to “government,” by the way). Anyway, the authoritarians zip right straight past GO, getting away with not having to explain this entity for the same reason people believe in Santa Claus. It’s existence is supposed to be good for you. There is no question about where the right to rule you came from. In America, it has worked for years to just say, “consent of the governed.” [“Nam myoho renge kyo . . .”] Chant “consent of the governed” over enough times and you too can forget that no one ever even asked your consent for anything like the power to order you around, and take your money. You’re just “supposed” to accept it. If you insist, they will tell you that you give them your consent when you vote, and they’re at least partially right. Voting is tantamount to asking someone to rule you. It means also that you are asking someone to rule others, as well. One of those others, Skippy, is me. My judgment tells me you don’t have any right to order me around, and you therefore don’t have the right to ask someone else to do it either. Any attempt to do so I view as an assault on my freedom. In my eyes you’re participating in an evil scheme to rob me of my rights if you participate in the religious ritual of voting. That’s definitely not what authoritarians want you to think. They want you to believe in “government,” and it’s inherent authority, or right to rule. How does "government" supposedly get this "right to rule"? It doesn't. There is no logical way to explain how an entity composed of a group of people which excludes anyone else at all can collectively create a right to rule anyone outside of the group itself. When a bunch of people get together and decide on a course of action for themselves, they have a legitimate purpose. When they do the same thing in order to force a decision on someone outside their group, they become a mob. Does anyone have the right to rule you? Do you have the right to rule anyone else? When I ask this question of authoritarians they will usually say "no" (if they say yes, the logical result of everyone having that same right is anarchy). Since “no” is the sane answer, the next question is, "Can you delegate to someone else the right to rule others if you don't have that right yourself?" Again, if they answer "Yes," the logical result is absurd, since then it would be okay to contract out any other right that doesn't exist, such as robbery, or even murder. So, the sane answer is again, "No." Having answered "no," the authoritarian has effectively ruled out "democracy" (majority rule) since no matter how many people you have on your side, a right that doesn't exist cannot materialize by having a large enough number of people agree with it. Forty million times zero right-to-rule is still zero right-to-rule. It may look like "democracy," and if "democracy" means mob rule, then that's what it is. It is identical to a large number of people joining a gang and living off of the plunder of everyone else ("democracy" is another abstraction I put in quotes to differentiate it from anything real). The corporation created by "democracy" to rule others is properly called a gang, not the euphemism, "government." How does someone in “government" get a right you or I don't have? This is usually where state-worshippers get evasive in their answers. The vague nature of "government" becomes apparent as each authoritarian tries to come up with an explanation of how the impossible happens. It normally goes something like this:
		DB: It gets it from us, as in "we the people."         Me: How?         DB: We give them the authority to do things like defense.         Me: How do they get the authority to rule you?         DB: Through us voting for them.         Me: How do they get a right to do things YOU don't have, from                 you voting?         DB: What right that I don't have?         Me: To rule over others. You don't have the right to rule others, do                 you?         DB: No, it comes with the consent of the governed, after being                 elected.         Me: How do people who don't have the right to rule others consent                 to turn that right over to someone else who might be called                 "government"?         DB: It's called "majority rule."         Me: That's the case for slavery. How do you prevent the majority                 from enforcing evil intentions against the minority?         DB: Checks and balances and constitutional limits.         Me: Who enforces those?         DB: We the people do, through voting.         Me: So "we the people" give "government" the right to do things                 that we don't have the right to do, namely rule over us, and if                 we don't like the way they do that, we the people just vote                 them out?         DB: That's the way it works.         Me: And what do you do if they use the checks and balances you                 told me about to overrule you when you try to overrule them?         DB: Then, you have the right to replace them.         Me: With force?         DB: If necessary.         Me: What if you lose?         DB: Then, it becomes a dictatorship.         Me: So, in the end it depends on who has the most firepower, is                 that fair to say?         DB: Only if it comes to that. That's why we have the constitution,                 though. To make revolt unnecessary.         Me: If you read the constitution, it makes it a crime.         DB: The government has a right to defend itself.         Me: So let's see where we are with this right to rule deal: "We the                 people" give "government" the right to do things that we don't                 have the right to do, namely rule over us, and if we don't like                 the way they do that, we the people just vote them out, and                 if they don't like the idea of being voted out, they overrule us,                 so then we get to revolt, and then they have the right to defend                 themselves (presumably with nuclear weapons), and whoever                 wins gets the authority (right to rule). Is that how it works,                 because that's what you just said.         DB: That's not exactly what I meant.         Me: Of course not, because it sounds insane when you put it all                 together. It also describes how a gang works, and you don't                 want to admit that your description of "authority" is the                 equivalent of how gangs operate. It is an accurate assessment                 of what you just said, though. (It is also indistinguishable from                 anarchy.)
	What it means ultimately is that the gang with the most firepower wins, assuming they have the will to use it. That's survival of the fittest, which is anarchy. It was demonstrated during the War of the Rebellion when the states which had previously "consented" to joining the union decided they wanted out. Under any version of "consent," they could have left the union unopposed. That they fought bitterly against a superior union force proved they did not consent to being ruled, and the fact that the union overcame their objection with decisive firepower shows what happens when reality kicks in, and notions of "individual sovereignty," and "consent of the governed" are temporarily suspended so people can get down to the dirty business of deciding who rules whom. --Bill Malloy