Larken Rose
4 HN recommenders · recommended in 7 months, 2013–2017
9:59 · 237K views · Nov 25, 2009
A short anarchist-leaning video by Larken Rose arguing that the Constitution and similar documents cannot legitimately grant anyone the right to take other people's property. It uses a rhetorical 'paper that lets me rob you' setup to challenge belief in political authority.
Libertarian-minded commenters post it in surveillance, government and constitution threads as a red-pill argument that political authority is illusory.
9 comments from Hacker News
Yeah, speaking the truth tends to get you downvoted. People are silly and emotional. But it's nice to see another independent thinker here. I've noticed you before. Don't pay much attention to the political circus though, the false choice between "Demopublicans". That's all smoke and mirrors to make you think you have a say in how you're "governed" (i.e. coerced ). > The current mess of the US economy is due to the choices of many politicians, in congress and the presidency, from both parties. It's much deeper than that. The dollar was detached from the gold standard in 1971, and that was the beginning of "the real end". Before that, the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 set the scene for all the economic trouble to come, and so on. Check out: [LINK] > This is why we need the government out of the economy, and let it work. You're on the right track, but take it further. We need the government out of existence : this video .. it is based on extortion, after all. What maintains governments is the belief in political authority: [LINK] > Hell if it weren't for government the bad banks would have failed in 2008-- and we would have had a real recovery afterwards. That's certainly true.
> I do not understand. I thought that in the current climate, where people are becoming increasingly aware and concerned about privacy, that such laws would be expanded in scope. It's very simple. The government is not working towards our interests, but their own. That applies to every government everywhere, all throughout history, because all governments are populated by psychopaths. They don't want you to have any privacy at all. Instead, they want to monitor everything you say and do, because it helps them maintain their rule over you. Red Pill: this video Oh and by the way, this account will be shadowbanned, because HN is controlled by psychopaths too, and anti-government (=pro-sanity) posters are censored out. One more thing. You're being told about a "privacy law" being scrapped, because they want to advance "the chilling effect". They want everyone to be afraid of speaking out, as the budding police state engulfs them. You could look into moving to some less scary country.
The only way to "solve" the problem is to spread awareness of it. Political authority is the idea that a small group of people "has the right" to impose their will on everyone else. In reality though, they obviously do not. Everyone has the exact same rights (and they don't include coercing other people), and you can't delegate rights you do not have. But the belief in political authority is the root cause of practically all problems in today's world. Once the "Authority Religion" unravels, so does mankind's enslavement: this video
In reality, it's not that complicated. Here's all you need to know about the Constitution: this video
Yeah, we can agree that utility is non-linear. What we haven't established yet is: "so what?" :) > I think it's a fair question, but it seems hypocritical to ask immediately after asking: "why would anyone else have the right to decide how their property is allocated or used". Why would it be hypocritical? I'm not advocating for someone else using your property, nor for helping some through harming others. > However, every study I've seen done on this issue has shown that unconditional cash transfers to impoverished people tends to be used reasonably well[1] Didn't we already conclude that evidence is really quite meaningless in this discussion? It's not difficult to find statistics and articles to support the idea of redistribution. It is difficult, however, to explain why anyone's money should be "redistributed" away from him, considering it's his property. If a rich person's kid has a shitload of Lego bricks, should some of them be taken away from him to be redistributed to poor people's kids? > Certainly there will be some people who choose not to use redistributed income well, just as there are some people who have lots of capital who choose not to use their income well. What does it mean to use one's income well? Who decides if my use of my income is acceptable? Why would anyone be in a position to decide that for me ? If I want to buy my seventh Ford Fiesta because it will bring me immense joy, can you claim I'm not using my capital or income well ? > This one you'll h