41 votes

Top 4 Government Perpetuated Myths

1. We are the government.
Nope. The government is made up of the law makers and the army of men and woman they employ to carry out their will. It is an entity that is separate and apart from society.

They claim the right to harm the individuals of society without legal consequence...with legal impunity. Think:if a congressman votes for a law that puts me out of business, can I bring a court action against him?

2. The government works for society.
Nope. The government GOVERNS society...and it is not obligated to you in any way.

3. The government represents the majority of society.
Nope. The total number of law makers is minuscule. It is their will that becomes binding on the whole of society.

4. Paying taxes is paying for government provided services.
Nope. The government takes money from whomever it wants, as it wants, and is not obligated to provide any services in return.
It only provides services as it pleases.(to buy loyalty, dependence, and infrastructure it desires.)

These myths are word games they've used to keep us from realizing a frightening truth. We are ruled...by a small number of people...who employ an army to forcefully carry out their will.

I am for individual liberty and believe the primary rule which should govern society as a whole is: Do not harm another.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

And "Anarchy" Is A Bad Word On This Forum?

People have freaked out when I discuss "anarchy" here on the DP. But almost every principle, every discussion, and every argument.. is in line with the philosophy of anarchy; the "non-aggression principle."

If you disagree with the philosophy of anarchy, what part of anarchy do you disagree with?

I see anarchists as...

Some anarchists I talk to want to abolish both the governments and the courts.
When anarchy, by definition, means only absence of government.
These anarchists fail to realize that courts can be (and ought to be) separate from government- I am aware that its not that way now.

And they don't recognize the benefits of a judicial system with due process. I believe it is a vital component to society because in the course of exchange and trade individuals can bump and bruise each other and it benefits individuals to have access to an ultimate neutral arbiter who can settle disputes quickly and equitably.

I would be considered an anarchist because I want the dissolution of all government, and the implementation of a peer run judicial system (grand jury to indict and unanimous petite jury to extract life, liberty, or property)

Also, i am for the idea of commonly owned management companies where members in a community own certain property and infrastructure in common.

I believe the distinction you

are trying to describe is between nomian anarchists (such as, for example, anarchocapitalists) and antinomian anarchists (such as all true absolute pacifists). Nomiam anarchists believe in a system of law enforceable with violence, while antinomian anarchists (such as our own Octobox) believe that there should be no legal system imposed through violence. Note that all pacifists are antinomians, but that not all antinomians are pacifists (I believe Octobox is not explicitly a pacifist).

Interestingly enough, nomian anarchy (such as anarchocapitalism) can coexist with antinomian anarchy, as it does not force antinomians, even absolute pacifists, to financially contribute to the legal system. And, of course, most antinomian systems cannot interfere with the workings of nomian systems, as that would require violently imposing a legal system to oppose the legal system imposed by the nomians, which would violate their own principles.

All this gets back to my basic point, which is that anarchy is the only political system permissible by an objective morality, in which all nonaggressive factions can coexist.


I'll study those two terms and get back with you.

I think that:
"Do not harm another" is the one law that naturally limits the behavior of individuals in a society. And the only time non-consentual violence is appropriate is when defending against those who violate that one law.

The terms

"nomian" and "antinomian" were originally used in a religious context. An "antinomian" is a Christian who believes that those who are saved are not subject to God's law, essentially saying that once one is forgiven, the only constraints on their actions are their own conscience and the influence of God's spirit. The term I used here, "antinomian anarchist" is my own term, but I bet someone has made the connection before.

Your point is well taken, that the law (at least natural law) is written into our hearts: "Do not harm another."

No, it's not a bad word,

Sign of the times: Michael Nystrom's glowing review of Larken Rose's anarchist masterpiece.

Er . . . maybe it IS a bad word. Michael actually never uses the word "anarchism" in his review.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

yeah, try not to use that word

People run away screaming, freaking out. No final authoritay? I need to respect someone's authoritay! It's the same reason people flock to religion. The idea that there is no overseer is metaphysically terrifying to people. You mean I am all alone after all? "I" have to decide? Who am "I"? What if there is no "I"? These questions strike at the heart of consciousness and the existential dread that can take hold of a person if they dive too deep. Having someone above quiets these fears.

Instead, focus on issues, like privatizing police services or judicial services.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Not quite accurate

The concept of a government of, by, and for the people is a good one, and it is not something impossible to acheive.

The problem is as you say that government does not serve society or answer to the public. But the reason why is because rich, bastard $$ Banksters $$ completely bought-out and control the executive branch, the congress, the court system, and the U.S. Media (Rothschilds, Warburgs, Morgan, Rockefellers, etc.).

And using their private wealth, they control the entire Election process by Bribery.

So then "Public officials" under our system spend most of their time on their knees asking for money. This is because our Election system is designed around the idea of legalized bribery....where vast sums of money ( $100s of millions) are required, and the candidate with the most money and the most favorable media exposure is usually assured the Election. This is especially true of Presidential Elections where pre-chosen, establishment-friendly puppet candidates -- and not reformers-- are picked and then forced upon the public as "front runners" and the only "serious candidates" in the race.

But if you shut down the Private Central Bank (which only masquerades as being "part of" the government - but it makes the rules not the other way around), and provided equal Media Air time and equal Debate time to all the candidates -- and took money (the tool of the rich and powerful) out of the whole system --- then yes, it would be very, very, very different.

Politicians then would have the incentive and the motive to act only on behalf the public interest ... and to support policies that helped the masses (rather than the top 1% Elites, and/or the global bankers & puppet-masters).

So the concept of government is not a doomed idea. It is just that the implementation that we have is horribly, horribly done (and based on corruption -- a.k.a bribery).

Because anytime that you have a system based on money & wealth (bribery) being the sole determinant of the outcome -- then such a system could never, ever produce a good result for the people. How could it? It's like going to a Football game where the Umpires have all been paid off by one side in advance.

So this necessarily means that the rich will always win (and get what they want)... and everybody else will lose and be made into their slaves and victims.

Money and power always go hand in hand together. And we all know the truth that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You have to take money out of the system, before you can ever have "public representation". But public representation is an achievable concept.

But when The Banksters are the "government" (regardless of any Elections), then the truth is that there is no functioning Government here at all. It does not exist!

There is only a smokescreen. We have only the Theater of government, but not the real thing. You have to first take all the money out of the system (and with it... the money masters), and then the Truth will finally have the oxygen it needs to prevail and succeed, and thrive.

You support government funded election campaigns?

Let me see, the government funds the election of its own officials, and this will, of course be done impartially and without bias. More unreality!

Let me get this straight --

Every government that has ever existed, regardless of its original form, has degenerated into an absolute despotism, and you still cling to the notion that a government (an organization whose nature is institutionalized violence) can serve the interests of the people? Man, you're not living in reality.

Challenging your premise

I believe you suffer from an errant premise and it is not uncommon: The government is some sort of management company. It is not, and it was never intended to be, although that has been how government has characterized itself to you since elementary school.

Government is not a management company and even if all the conditions were present that you put forth, they would still:
1. Have zero obligation to you.
2. Be able to harm you with impunity.
*3. Possess the power to micromanage your private daily affairs.
(I consider 3 to be a subset of number 2)

So again, here we have a well meaning liberty lover, misunderstanding the basic mechanics of civics, which is directing their energy away from individual liberty.

Also "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a quote from lincoln's getty's burg address where he uttered these words as he was ironically conquering the south-Hypocrite much?

Lastly the idea of a commonly owned management company is not a bad idea (in theory). I could see a community assigning certain property to a management company and electing a group of administrators to take care of the property. A major difference between a management company and government is a management company does not possess any of the 3 attributes listed above, any more than they possesses those attributes now. Totally different.

In that sense, illusion is

In that sense, illusion is their biggest weapon, our choices is their biggest concern........enough people lose confidence, and they lose the illusion, not necassarilly the seat, but the illusion none the less, but with the illusion gone, how will the hypnotized react

You got #1 wrong. We are a government of laws - not of men.

That is what defines us as a republic.

It is a HUGE difference.

Government is NOT the people that occupy institutions, it is the institutions themselves, but more aptly, the laws which created those institutions.

Our government then is not Obama, or Reid, or Boehner, or Roberts. It isn't even the President, or the Senate, or the House, or the Supreme Court, but rather the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof.

That is, on the federal level. The same goes for the State level.

You're confusing theory with

You're confusing theory with reality. In theory you are right, in reality you are wrong.

"we are a government of laws..."

Oh gosh, here we go with the "we" stuff. I got news for you, I am not the government, and chances are, neither are you. Especially if you go by your definition:
"Government is NOT the people that occupy institutions, it is the institutions themselves, but more aptly, the laws which created those institutions."

Q. Who makes and enforces these laws?

A. The lawmakers and their employees.

The lawmakers are in charge of the form and function of the institutional offices you refer to. They have the power to bend and mold the institution according to THEIR will. Then they may carry out the function of their office according to THEIR will. Yes, THEY are the government as the institution is only an elastic expression of their will.

It wouldn't be a real "myth"

unless someone believed it. That would be you, I guess.

You try too hard to impose your own idea of what "government" is supposed to be, over the reality of what it is.

When does a "forest" become just a bunch of trees?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

SteveMT's picture

The myths perpetuated by government are endless.

Yours are the general myths that lay the foundation for people to completely buy into the specific ones without any questioning whatsoever.

1. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack that FDR knew nothing about
2. Oswald shot Kennedy
3. 9/11 was a surprise attack that Bush/Cheney knew nothing about
4. We went to the moon (I am probably alone here, but just had to get this pet-peeve of mine on this list. No arguments from me if you believe that we went.)
There are many, many more.

Thanks for your post.

scawarren's picture

LOL on #4 but honestly I've

LOL on #4 but honestly I've never looked in to it but I wouldn't be surprised. I have to admit I've often wondered why we never went back.

To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.
e.e. cummings

SteveMT's picture

I posted some videos below.

Once you go down this rabbit hole, your mind will be boggled. Everything concerning these landings has been debunked. Enjoy.

Using a high-powered

Using a high-powered telescope one can indeed confirm the moon landing. -facepalm-


Is it possible for a person to really be so ignorant these days? Apparently, the answer is "yes".

SteveMT's picture

Not correct. The pictures are not confirmatory.

The LRO pictures at either 50km or even 25km are also not confirmatory

Was your question a rhetorical question?

There's a lot more evidence than just that

via the link Velveeta posted. I find it hard to believe that anyone still doubts we ever landed on the moon, but if you can point me to a site that tries to respond to the wide variety of evidence, I'd certainly be curious to see how they try.

Is the theory that only the manned missions were fake, or that the unmanned landings were fake too? Orbiters? Unmanned missions to other planets, voyager, etc? All fake?

SteveMT's picture

All of the supposed evidence has been debunked.

There are 126 videos here:
There are 11 videos here:

Thanks for asking. There are more also. Apollo is the mother of all conspiracy theories. If the government lies, and big lies work better than smaller ones, then 'Houston we have a problem' with the government telling the truth.


Here's the guy's site: http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html
Much easier to get the gist of his arguments there than by watching the videos.

I've got to say I'm impressed with the work he's put into it. Compared to some of the WTC theories that have been posted recently -- confusing kinetic energy with gravity, or an analysis that only makes sense if potential energy doesn't exist, or the claim that if progressive collapse theories were true then an object hitting the earth would go all the way through the planet, etc -- he's got some analysis there that at least tries to be scientifically sound. I don't think it's very convincing, but he's done a far better job with it than I expected.

He's put a lot of work into making his theories as consistent as possible. For example, the presence of laser reflectors on the moon can be independently verified. So his theory assumes that there had to have been a secret unmanned mission to put them there. For transmission delays, he proposes that there would be an unmanned relay (presumably half way between here and the moon) and a system of geostationary satellites around earth on this end so that it's always visible; the apollo astronauts would have been orbiting the earth, but having their transmissions received and rebroadcast back to earth by the satellite halfway between here and the moon, picked up by the geostationary satellite, and broadcast from there to earth. Got to give him credit for imagination and attention to detail.

SteveMT's picture

I follow Jarrah pretty closely.

I appreciate that you've gotten back to me about this. I find his arguments pretty compelling. Beware of a governmental agency who possesses all of the information needed to end a hoax theory, but chooses not to release this information. Two examples are the never released 9/11 pentagon videos and the Zapruder film only released after 10+ years and sufficient time for them to redact it.

Look up the LADEE satellite launched earlier this month. It's headed to the moon, but it will take 30 days to get there. Ten times as long as it took Apollo to get to the moon. In addition, this thing is going to study "levitating moon dust?"

"The LADEE mission, which cost $280m (£180m), also hopes to get an insight into the odd behaviour of moondust, which appears to levitate from the surface and has mystified scientists and astronauts for decades."

Moon dust known to levitate for decades? That news to me. No moon dust on the footpads of any LEM after being blasted by the descending LEM, but apparently this moon dust levitates on its own.

Thanks so much for listening. This subject has been a 20 year trip down the rabbit hole for me in an attempt to find out the truth. The quest continues.

Levitating moon dust

The thing about an unmanned mission taking ten times as long to get there doesn't seem surprising. There are lots of choices about how to get from here to there, and with an unmanned mission they can take longer to get there if it saves fuel. Having a manned mission take 30 days would be a different matter.

I'd never heard of the levitating moon dust. Very interesting.

I'm not even slightly convinced that the lunar landings were a hoax, but I enjoyed reading about it and I'll keep an eye out for more. Other conspiracy theorists could take some lessons from Jarrah about coherence and plausibility, especially scientific plausibility (relatively speaking).

My take on moon visitation

is that the 1969 Moon landings were all for public consumption.

I'm sure we have been to the Moon but the 1969 Moon Landing that was aired on TV seems to be a false representation; acted out and filmed in a studio.

I like #4...

it wouldn't surprise me that no one landed on the moon!

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

Even the Supreme Court agrees with you

Justices Rule: Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone



Thank you for being aware. These are my conclusions after studying civics for the past 5 years. Amazing the rhetoric these people pull in stark contrast to the reality of our situation.