https://stasher.news/uploads/469
This one is a sledgehammer: Rose does not argue that government is “too big” or “the wrong party is in charge”. He argues that authority itself is a superstition: the belief that some people have a moral right to rule others, and that the rest of us have a duty to obey.
https://stasher.news/uploads/470
"The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity".
It's not just “power corrupts”: the concept cannot exist at all. you cannot delegate a right you do not have!
"In short, government does not exist. It never has and it never will. The politicians are real, the soldiers and police who enforce the politicians’ will are real, the buildings they inhabit are real, the weapons they wield are very real, but their supposed ‘authority’ is not".
A few lines that I still feel like cold water:
- “Any form of authoritarian control… will result in a set of masters forcibly oppressing a group of slaves. That is what ‘authority’ is.”
- “The belief in ‘government’ is a religion.”
- “Truly evil people… pose far less of a threat to mankind than the basically good people who believe in ‘authority.’”
- “Whether an old lady is robbed by an armed street thug or by a well-dressed, well-educated ‘tax collector’ makes no difference, morally or in practical terms.”
- “If you love death and destruction… teach your children to respect ‘authority.’ If you value peaceful coexistence… teach them self-ownership.”
If you already read Hasnas on the myth of the rule of law, or Rose’s Kicking the Dragon, this is the same cut taken all the way down: not “separate law from the state”, but “stop hallucinating a rightful master”, once the superstition drops, the interesting question is no longer who should rule. It is how people actually cooperate without a ruling class.
https://stasher.news/uploads/471
Short, blunt, and hard to unread.
Links:Links:
Support the author: https://therosechannel.com/shop
Read: https://annas-archive.is/search?q=the+most+dangerous+superstition
Listen: https://audiobookbay.lu/abss/the-moost-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose/
The .is link is to a fake version of annas archive (ask me how I know ... definitely did not give a lifetime donation only to be prompted asking for more money and unable to download)
Genuine domains are
gl, pk, gd
Link to book here https://annas-archive.gd/md5/b7cec738cd92e727a215bf24818a619a?&check=1
Should have seen the red flags, but thought it was just the internet giving into the vibe coding...
As the old saying goes.
Доверяй, но проверяй ))
Jeez! Thank you!
@stasher, is there any way to edit it without deleting it?!
Unfortunately no, edits are only possible within the first 10 minutes after posting/commenting. This is inherited from Stacker News.
I'm exploring improvements to the edit, but for now I would say don't delete it, just upvote @quadriocellata 's comment to the top (it already is)
If you're curious about the red flags, I may have chosen to ignore ...
yeaaaa , we can say that's my own fault. First time to ignore so many warning signs from me, I think I may have had a little bit too much trust in an internet post :P
Rose hits hard -- that's why people pass it around, but if you want the same cut with actual philosophical rigor, Huemer is the one: The Problem of Political Authority.
These books argue the state is illegitimate, but I rarely see a concrete picture of what replaces it at scale. Your post ends on that question, how people cooperate without a ruling class once the superstition drops.
Cooperation itself isn't really in doubt. Ostrom won the 2009 Nobel for documenting communities that ran fisheries, forests and irrigation for centuries without a state or private owners. How stateless societies end:
They end in one of two ways: internal consolidation into a new ruler, or conquest by someone who stayed organised. Rose's delegation argument explains why a new ruler would be illegitimate, but illegitimate isn't the same as prevented. What actually stops either?
Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority seems to attempt that part: its second half covers security, dispute resolution and war without a state. Have you read it, or found another book that actually tackles this?
hm, you're the second person recommending it, so I just downloaded it from AA. have you read it yourself?
...and tbh I'm not a fan of any argument based on "if you do not provide a solution you are not allowed to criticize the existing thing"... especially when that argument is used for complex systems: they can only emerge, they can never be effectively planned by humans, who can barely see first-order effects, let alone have incentives to do anything beyond their political lifetime:
Haven't read Huemer, came across it while researching. Part 2 sounds like topics not ventured enough in this genre IMO.
And I never said criticism needs a replacement attached, I'm just curious what comes next. You've been sketching bits and pieces of it: rules that are unwritten, local, and enforced by people who still have to see each other tomorrow; reputation that can't be seized; logistics that don't need a licence; staying unnamed so it doesn't start wanting what a state wants; and not converting the herd, just being a different species in the same jungle.
These have precedence. James C. Scott documents hill peoples in Southeast Asia who did that for centuries, through mobility, dispersal, and crops that were hard to tax. History also points the other way:
Not expecting anyone to have a neat answer. It's just the part I find interesting: what keeps the holes in the jungle open once the other side gets better at closing them, and what stops the defence from becoming the next ruler.
So many of these orders start free and end up state shaped that I wonder whether it's something built into how humans organise at scale. And if it is, whether it can really be stopped, or only outrun for a while.
someone else just recommended this author. ima get it.
You should, I'm someone else recommending this same author #339736 :) Syncronicity unfolding.
Get it: this book is just cathartic - it’s one of those rare ones that can actually radicalize people - same seismic feeling as The Sovereign Individual, but written by a much much more radical / passionate man, with no filters and no polite off-ramp.
Davidson/Rees-Mogg map the nice exit, Rose just kicks the fucking "authority" altar over )))
Reading the dragon. I need to finish the Failure book - see books. Then I think the superstition one. Thanks for the suggestions.