Obey authority? Here's the counterpoint to this question:
"The tragedy of war is that the young men and women die fighting each other - rather than their real enemies back home in their capitals." -Edward Abbey
Narrative narrative narrative. It blinds and binds these poor soldiers to the script, and then casts them off to die:
When Shakespeare sagely said that, "all the world is a stage", whether he meant that literally or not, it is and was absolutely true. All the world really is a stage—The narratives (narratives are the most powerful weapons in our world) we are bathed in from birth to death are - more often than not - counterfeit, and these narratives are the product of a parallel construction of events on a planetary scale.
What follows is some of the scaffolding used to construct the mirage reality of the global movie theater.
Quiet on Set, Places Everyone
Enter the CIA from stage left. Action!
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." -Former CIA Director William Colby (Operation Mockingbird)
The entire world is watching the Genocide in IsraHell. IDF terrorists proudly post their butchery on TikTok. Apparently, "Never Again" has been changed to "Never Again - Unless we are the ones doing it!"
"The modern nation-state, in whatever guise, is a dangerous and unmanageable institution, presenting itself on the one hand as a bureaucratic supplier of goods and services, which is always about to, but never actually does, give its clients value for money -- and on the other as a repository of sacred values, which from time to time invites one to lay down one’s life on its behalf. . . . it is like being asked to die for the telephone company."
As for "we the people" resisting government operatives who violate The Moral Imperative, it will not happen without charismatic leadership, if history is any guide.
Not usually. The Moral Imperative is this; do not compel unjustly. Compulsion is force, threat of force, or fraud. If government operatives are violating The Moral Imperative, do not obey them.
This article took a strange turn at the "consent through presence" section. If I am present in someone's home, then everyone will agree that I should abide their house rules or leave. If two homeowners enter a compact for a shared set of rules, then that would apply to both. Or if 3 or more up to the unit of a city-state. Ergo city-states can, in principle, rightfully set up forms of government.
A problem comes in when people set up laws that apply to areas of land they do not rightfully own, but even that is solvable assuming one sticks to justifiable human rights.
However, if only some agree on this shared set of rules, even a majority, then what of the majority that do not? Do they have to abide or leave, even if they own their portion of the land?
Can the government (group under shared rules, whether voluntarily or not) own the land that has been purchased with the labor of individuals? If they're making the rules and confiscating property under threat of violence, they either already own the property or they're stealing it.
One justifiable human right is the right of association, to associate with whom we choose to. To be involuntarily governed by a set of rules that one does not agree to is a violation of that right.
In my scenario they would have already agreed when they built the adjoining properties.
You're changing the scenario to one where they didn't plan ahead, which is a totally different topic. But in such scenario, all things equal, no you cannot assert your man-made rules onto someone else without their consent. You have to make a deal with the holdouts. (See my article.)
It's just that most people are born/raised under some form of gov't and are subjected to that gov't throughout their lives. It can be difficult to leave one form of gov't for another, except for perhaps moving from one state to another which doesn't require some change of citizenship.
Most people don't actively or explicitly agree to anything, they just find themselves in it.
As far as I am concerned the governments are well dressed thugs, I have signed no contract with them nor do I wish to.
Obey authority? Here's the counterpoint to this question:
"The tragedy of war is that the young men and women die fighting each other - rather than their real enemies back home in their capitals." -Edward Abbey
Any questions?
Only: why do men and women continue to do that?
Narrative narrative narrative. It blinds and binds these poor soldiers to the script, and then casts them off to die:
When Shakespeare sagely said that, "all the world is a stage", whether he meant that literally or not, it is and was absolutely true. All the world really is a stage—The narratives (narratives are the most powerful weapons in our world) we are bathed in from birth to death are - more often than not - counterfeit, and these narratives are the product of a parallel construction of events on a planetary scale.
What follows is some of the scaffolding used to construct the mirage reality of the global movie theater.
Quiet on Set, Places Everyone
Enter the CIA from stage left. Action!
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." -Former CIA Director William Colby (Operation Mockingbird)
Excerpt from: https://tritorch.substack.com/p/counterfeit-continuity-in-our-fourth
The entire world is watching the Genocide in IsraHell. IDF terrorists proudly post their butchery on TikTok. Apparently, "Never Again" has been changed to "Never Again - Unless we are the ones doing it!"
500,000+ killed in Syria – silence.
377,000+ killed in Yemen – silence.
5,400,000+ killed in Congo – silence.
236,000+ killed in Afghanistan – silence.
500,000+ killed in Sudan – silence.
300,000+ killed in Iraq – silence.
350,000+ killed in Nigeria – silence.
40,000+ killed in Gaza – extreme outrage.
"The modern nation-state, in whatever guise, is a dangerous and unmanageable institution, presenting itself on the one hand as a bureaucratic supplier of goods and services, which is always about to, but never actually does, give its clients value for money -- and on the other as a repository of sacred values, which from time to time invites one to lay down one’s life on its behalf. . . . it is like being asked to die for the telephone company."
- Scottish-American philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre
Who is "we"?
Are you interested in promoting your project on this services
✅CMC & CG
✅Webio pin post
✅KYC and audit restoration
✅Japanese &Chinese call post
✅Trust wallet logo/listing
✅Dextools trending with high volume and community trust
Direct contact +16232790391
The class war never ended
As for "we the people" resisting government operatives who violate The Moral Imperative, it will not happen without charismatic leadership, if history is any guide.
Not usually. The Moral Imperative is this; do not compel unjustly. Compulsion is force, threat of force, or fraud. If government operatives are violating The Moral Imperative, do not obey them.
https://www.amazon.com/Morality-Capitalism-Dialogue-David-Kendall/dp/1503233243
This article took a strange turn at the "consent through presence" section. If I am present in someone's home, then everyone will agree that I should abide their house rules or leave. If two homeowners enter a compact for a shared set of rules, then that would apply to both. Or if 3 or more up to the unit of a city-state. Ergo city-states can, in principle, rightfully set up forms of government.
A problem comes in when people set up laws that apply to areas of land they do not rightfully own, but even that is solvable assuming one sticks to justifiable human rights.
For further details see: https://reasonandliberty.com/essays/against_anarchism
However, if only some agree on this shared set of rules, even a majority, then what of the majority that do not? Do they have to abide or leave, even if they own their portion of the land?
Can the government (group under shared rules, whether voluntarily or not) own the land that has been purchased with the labor of individuals? If they're making the rules and confiscating property under threat of violence, they either already own the property or they're stealing it.
One justifiable human right is the right of association, to associate with whom we choose to. To be involuntarily governed by a set of rules that one does not agree to is a violation of that right.
In my scenario they would have already agreed when they built the adjoining properties.
You're changing the scenario to one where they didn't plan ahead, which is a totally different topic. But in such scenario, all things equal, no you cannot assert your man-made rules onto someone else without their consent. You have to make a deal with the holdouts. (See my article.)
It's just that most people are born/raised under some form of gov't and are subjected to that gov't throughout their lives. It can be difficult to leave one form of gov't for another, except for perhaps moving from one state to another which doesn't require some change of citizenship.
Most people don't actively or explicitly agree to anything, they just find themselves in it.
Excellent website, by the way (reasonandliberty.com).