This episode is an interview with Larken Rose, pt 4 titled “Government – The Fallacy of Ad Verecundiam, pt. 3” and is being released on Sunday, February 19, 2012. My interview with Larken was recorded on Friday, February 17, 2012.
Larken has been here thrice previous: last June, and the last two weeks and he’s back again as we complete our 3 part conversation on freedom and the appeal to authority fallacy, and ultimately, Freedom.
What does it mean to have a leader, or government? Does government protect our freedoms, or are they the very cause of our enslavement? And what does it mean to vote? Does voting give us freedoms that we otherwise might not have?
What if the idea of government was nothing but a religious myth, created by criminals and followed by billions of mindless zombie zealots the world over – just as any other dogma? What would happen if one day, just all of a sudden, everyone stopped believing in government?
Today we’ll be discussing what it means to believe in government. Is government real, or a figment of your collective, religious imagination? Does not voting mean that we’d be sitting around like a bunch of lazy couch potatoes doing nothing? Or, if we use critical thinking, is it really our first course of action to disempower the criminals whom we call politicians? Is voting the only way to effect change? Or is it in reality one of the least effective ways to effect change and gain freedom? And what does it mean to live in a democratic (or “mob-ruled”) society, anyway?
Today we question some of our most firmly held governmental religious myths as we continue this investigation on the myth of government, exposing government as the fallacy of “ad verecundiam”.
Larken Rose is a self-described “enemy of the state” and “tax heretic.” The author of several books–two of which were written during his one-year stay as a political prisoner in the U.S. prison system–Mr. Rose is an outspoken advocate of self-ownership and a voluntary society. For more information, see
http://www.larkenrose.com/
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:09:19 — 74.1MB)
I absolutely loved these series of interviews ,especially the way you, and larkin, mixed in humour,wit,bit of banter ,sarcasim ,about this this fucked up, reality we live in. I have no doubt, that this will jolt, anyone who is not aware of what is really going on, to question their reality,even if it does offend them.(which i’m sure they will get over) That is exactly why i can see this working on alot of people .because it’s coming across with a bit of wit,houmour ,even amuzement .After all it’s all about getting people to wake up .
Thanks jan ,and larkin.
love it .
i really want to know how and wshen stefan did that analogy
Thanks Jan,
These series of interviews have been most enjoyable; in a kind of macabre way.
Just listened to podcast 138. Guess all I can say is right on. I have been trying to wake up for about two years now, and there is still some sleepy dust in my eyes. Sometimes I am torn between ‘leave me alone, let me sleep’, and ‘what the hell, how come nobody tried to wake me earlier?’ I have enjoyed many of your interviews, as well your cohorts. It would seem that knowledge negates fear, fear wears you out, makes you want to sleep. I guess the tools of fear and force are thus necessities of the master. Shake your head to loosen the shackles, that is where the chain leads.
On a side note, regarding symbolism, am I just a conspiracy nut, or is the symbol for homeland security actually a Phoenix?
Thank you so much, Jan. And, Thank you so much, Larken.
Welcome aboard. Glad you took the red pill. It takes a while to grasp it all, but from here the best you can do is study all things on education that we have here, especially the trivium material, as well as everything by Clint Richardson and Walter Burien. You’re very welcome. It’s messages like this that make everything worth while. So thank YOU for grasping what I’m doing here.
Stellar talks J&L.
I would only say that the reason one can use a blanket statement like The Jews/Israelis or The Americans is because every Jew especially Israeli Jews just like Americans are complicit in whatever their Governments are doing in their names. So unlike Larken who has told the Fed to F itself, everyone who hasn’t done that is still complicit, so every Israeli is responsible for the actions of its Gov. just like Americans! Now I know the Jews are a religion but the same applies if you call yourself a Jew you are responsible for whatever your church/synagog does, just like the Catholics, if the priests are screwing children then every Catholic is complicit, especially when nothing is done about it!
I have no allegiance to any church or State, so the blanket doesn’t cover me..thank the baby J.
Who does a blanket cover?…those that are in bed…..WAKE UP turn off the tube and get out of bed or die there!
Keep it up Jan, and thanks for helping to remove the blanket.
Cheers.
This was awesome man! this last interview especially, i enjoyed the whole series…but this last one totally blows away all of the annoying arguments that are thrown at all of us on a fairly regular basis lol
i found myself in between hysterically laughing and mindblown throughout the whole interview!
I would suggest clipping afew of these into youtube segments…especially the “dont worry be happy” segment… i think that would really get around
im sure your busy with the new projects and all, just a suggestion
Ill be linking this as essential media on my site ..probobly indefinitely lol everyone needs to hear this…. thanks again for another awesome contribution to the “great conversation” ;-P
I have lots of respect for this site and ideas put forward by Jan and Larken. However when debunking the perils of a power vacuum under anarchy there was an obvious oversight.
He laid out natural constraints on individuals, why they would have to behave within certain parameters, why a bully would get bumped on the head if he goes too far etc. None of which I have issue with.
But Larken failed to address mans natural desire to organise himself into gangs. This is not learned even wolves hunt in packs, tribes are just big families etc. Under anarchy it wouldnt be a case of phoning fred to help out with an intruder or local menace, gangs would quickly form such as we see with hells angels or mafia groups.
Mafia is a primitive form of Government, and Government is a sophisticated form of Mafia. Of course groups would form and then fight for turf and of course “fred” wouldnt have a chance in hell.
Even if you had an army of Freds, they would be hopeless unless they were organised… who would organise them? who would be “incharge” of them? I know elect someone to direct the army of “freds” and roster there patrols!! Its a vicious circle.
People are controlled by fear, what they fear is their own nature.
Trying to change human nature is a BIG ask, although I wish you all the best with your endeavours.
We did in fact talk about the alpha male – which is what gangs organize around. Actually, he addresses this via education.
I agree this is a big weakness that only got half addressed, namely that he with the most funds (also ammassed from before this hypothetical move to a libertarian society) runs the place.
i. e. In the example of the factory soiling the stream, they said that a neighbour would go there with a baseball bat. In reality the company would in response fund a gang of thugs to smash neighbours place if he badmouthed them.
Thinking of this, didn’t we all once start out as a libertarian society? and then it all (d)evolved into what we see today? Presentday elites are yesteryears most succesful libertarians.
I do believe in dividing up power as much as possible though.
I just wanted to make one observation, relating to traffic laws. After the invasion of iraq there was no traffic enforcement and Iraqi roads turned into complete chaos. However I will happily admit that was not anarchy, that was just exchanging one big tyrant for thousands of little ones. US solders, militiamen, government thugs, organized crime, whatever.
I’m just going to take some quotes out of context here, or maybe just identify some contradictions – however you want to look at it.
“Whatever your intentions may be, you can’t improve human society, you can’t create peaceful civilisation by threatening and hurting people. Shouldn’t that be obvious? Self evident?” – 11:35
(“So how do we deter crooks?”)
“By violence, to be blunt. But by violence that normal human beings see as inherently legitimate” 100:03
A lot of ‘normal’ human beings (including authorities and crooks) see government (or other forms of) threats and violence as inherently legitimate now. Does that mean it is? Larken says that peace and order would be best maintained by public threats made by private individuals, and the resulting fear that would exist. Like a privatised version of the Cuban missile crisis, or a cold war at an individual level of society – where everyone behaves out of fear that their neighbour may shoot them or they may have to shoot their neighbour if one does something that offends another’s “own moral code”. Whatever your intentions may be, threats and fear can never create the kind of peaceful society that love, respect and unity does and they can’t tell anyone how to behave. Love forces people to behave consciously and responsibly (for the common good) – natural law. All actions have consequences.
Peace, love, respect and unity will break down the barriers between us and them (authorities/crooks) including our own barriers, but we have to accept that these sorts of human beings will be some of the last to awaken to their ignorance because they have so much invested in their identity/position as an authority/crook – unfortunately, some will probably never awaken during their life. For now, we are better off focusing our time and energy on the low hanging fruit so to speak – helping people who are starting to wake up and especially children and young adults who are ripe to act in ways that create a better world,there is so many of ‘us’.
The pen is mightier than the sword. People believe government/religious/just some random individual’s authority more by words (including threats) than by violence backing them up. People don’t believe violence and don’t consent to it – they are always unwilling victims to it. Ignorant people accept and believe words if they are well crafted/deceiving and they don’t understand what they mean; intelligent people accept and believe words if they are logical and actually speak to their consciousness and experience of the world; wise people integrate the words that they have accepted and believe into their lives and teach them to others who are willing to learn. I was born into a world where I am controlled by words and people who think they have authority over me, so understanding the meaning of the words used against me (‘their’ system) and defending against them is why I’m researching lawful rebellion and trust law (eg. The Peoples Public Trust, Dean Clifford, Max Igan etc.) at the moment.
I don’t know if it’s just because I don’t live in the US or don’t understand the obsession with guns and violence, or I’m just a strange man. I know a lot of people here and around the world have similar feelings (fears?) about Americans, US military bases and US military action around the world. We all inherit our own different history and can’t change what has happened, but we can take responsibility for what is happening now in our name and the future we create. I see culture, community and positive role models waking people up, especially the younger generation.
I don’t know how you can talk for so long about the myth of government without discussing the myth of money that is the debt based monetary system (World Bank/IMF) – the belief in money is more ingrained and more powerful than the myth of government. If the US government disappeared tomorrow, what would happen when all US money has no value, because there is no belief in or trust ‘money’? People would still struggle to let that belief go and find alternative ways to keep exchanging value with each other because they are so invested/attached, and believe that the US money that they own is their life’s work and property – they would probably try to continue using it as if it represented real value regardless for a time. A lot of people would stop creating value for each other just to focus on individual survival. In reality money is worthless and hardly represents anything of value, it’s valuable and desired because it is believed to be valuable, desired and accepted – it buys stuff. Larken discusses money as if it is real and independent of government (eg. that the government takes it from us to pay for things). This is not really how it works at all.
You can spurn people with jobs all you want, but jobs create wealth and happiness by creating real value for people. Without jobs we don’t have food, water, housing, electricity, roads, cars, fuel, computers, microphones, internet, etc. – The Modern Age. I think we all need to be a lot more conscious (ethical) in the jobs we do, the people we work for and with, the products we buy and use, and in the organisation of our infrastructure and use of our resources – and not further private/corporate agendas that are anti-human. On the whole jobs give people a sense of value, self-respect, community and independence that is hard to find without one. We need to respect each other and what we are all doing, unless it is anti-human or breaking natural law – then we need to hold people responsible/liable for their actions. Now how do we change the money system so that it can’t be artificially created by fraud and that it truly represents the value that people create for their society? I honestly don’t know – maybe LETS, bitcoin, or some other decentralised form of currency that people trust/believe/value/desire.
I don’t understand how you equate voting for Ron Paul a violent act against yourself or other people when the guy is so vehement in his criticism of US foreign policy – aggression and war – and passionate about standing up for individual rights (and has been for years). Sure, there may be some technicalies in his policies that you disagree with (something to do with CAFRs – I honestly don’t understand what you mean), but I think having a conspiratorial view of the world is making you way too suspicious of people and thinking that everyone is evil and out to ruin the world. At least he appears to oppose the corporate fascist police state agenda (status quo) everyone else stands for – If it turns out he’s just another one of ‘them’, same old same old. Whats the difference? Something has to happen in ‘their’ political world regardless. Remember that politicians don’t just create statutes/laws/policy, but they also repeal statutes that are currently in place (why was Kennedy killed?) and the US has a lot of bad statutes and bad policy, probably more than anywhere else in the world. I know that you think violent revolution is the way to remedy this, but I can’t see that as being good for America/ns, at least in the short/medium term.
We need to use what authority doesn’t have and can’t give us – culture, love, peace, imagination, humour, soul and intelligence to be role models with these qualities. We need to truly care for ourselves and each other. Most of all, we need to each be responsible for ourself and let go of the unwholesome beliefs that are preventing us from being our best. We need to make sure that when people whose unwholesome beliefs cause them to harm others, they are held responsible for their actions. Freedom doesn’t exist if you don’t understand who you are and what you stand for – until people wake up and form this in their own mind, freedom can’t be forced on them. If you open the cage to free a battery hen, do you poke it and laugh at it if it won’t go free and be the best fucking chicken and it can be? No! You need to love it, show it care, encourage it, give it time, maybe even show it another chicken walking around being healthy, not worrying and being happy – basically help it find its way back to health gradually.
Lastly, again in defence of meditation/’positive thinking’… Please try to understand that meditation is a practice, a conscious process, an activity – it’s about trying to come to a greater understanding by organising knowledge, and it usually leads one into a state of ‘positive thinking’ naturally. In terms of trivium skills (input-process-output) it is the process/logic stage. It helps to form logical/wise rhetoric/output, but the practice/process/act of meditating/’positive thinking’ should not be confused as being output/rhetoric in itself. It helps you to let go of previously held beliefs that are unhelpful or harmful to yourself and others and come to new understandings (beliefs) of self and how to be/act in the world.
You can worry and be miserable if you want, but I say don’t worry, be happy (Or just be) – our output will come from a more grounded place than if we worry or constantly doubt people, and hopefully benefit yourself and others a great deal more. On the other hand, I do understand the justifications for feeling angry about injustice and suffering and being suspicious of public servants etc.. I just seek positive non-violent ways of dealing with it. By practise, meditation and the state of mind that it cultivates becomes more natural (much like you have said that using the trivium/critical thinking does) and you don’t have to sit on a cushion with your eyes closed, ignoring the problems of the world to do it. Being positive doesn’t mean that one isn’t/can’t be critical, but I 100% agree that we have to act to change what we oppose (be the change) and not just play a private mental game with ourself.
“If someone thinks that love and peace is a cliche that must have been left behind in the Sixties, that’s his problem. Love and peace are eternal.” – John Lennon
Positive creative culture (from all over the world in the Modern Age) that inspires me, (+Gnostic Media):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkkpRE660Ls&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS1C5qzI8O0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQTB9KWT_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNWEvtc6yfY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWo2RHpK7WU&NR=1&feature=endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvKu2UNHQpA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu2AJ5dErH4&feature=related
On second thoughts, just give me a blue pill I’m getting tired
Thanks for your work, I find real value in it. PLUR!
And cheer the fuck up mate. We’re all in cages of one sort or another and we keep walking into other ones trying to break free. We are free, and we are united, no matter what cage we’re in or anyone tries to put us in.
a small point, but guns are not equateble with violence. Violence has many forms, yet at the end of the day, a gun cannot shoot itself.
Also, knowing there is a gun in every home only creates fear for those who are afraid of guns. Those who own them, have respect for them. This goes for criminals and non criminals alike.
Threats cause fear, not guns. I myself don’t want to own a gun; I don’t mind people owning guns, but there’s no need to threaten people arbitrarily and I don’t see that as acceptable or conducive to a peaceful, civilised society. It’s my understanding that in common law a threat of violence is assault, meaning that it is widely recognised as causing harm to another person. Most people don’t undertsand their rights and how to defend them (especially against government agents) – it’s not the sort of thing you learn in school.
However, I would personally feel uncomfortable living in a society where everyone carried guns in public and issued public threats in newspapers etc. so that they feel safe – probably to do with my general determination and attempts in my life to cultivate respect and love within my society. I recognise that no matter what I do, some people will choose to own guns, threaten violence and act violently rather than engaging in non-violent compassionate communication to solve problems.
It is threats that are violent, so recognise the threats of government agents as violent and hold them responsible/liable for their actions and the harm that they cause you.
that would all be fine and good, IF the threat to you was acting rationally. Tyranny does not recognise your reason–this is why you need to protct yourself with the most respected form of self defence.
also you are using words like guns, violence, and threats very casually–most of us have grown up in a mind-controled perversion that links these words together, when in reality they are really not synonymous.
the Global Socialist Order wants world disarmarment–so they can control YOU. not so you can defend yourself from thugs, Govt or not. See the leopard for its spots.
I’m not being casual at all with words, I’m trying to use them very deliberately to explain my thoughts. Living in fear is not conducive to freedom. Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear – not absence of fear. As I said, no matter what I do, some people will choose to own guns, threaten violence and act violently – I consider the last of these 2 acts irrational. I dont really care what you believe ‘the GSO’ or any other shadowy cabal wants, or whether you believe that I need to protect myself by owning a gun. If you believe that I’m mind-controlled and perverted thats your problem. Metta.
“Hay lessen little man”
Larkin and Jan, this series of interviews was like a mushroom trip in public, most revealing and funny as hell when you realize how mindless and controllable the general public is. Larken your insights of the obvious, and ability to communicate them to others, is outstanding. Having gone through all of Jans interviews on this site, this one stands out as the most in your face wake up call of them all. I sure “hope” this will be far from the last interview of yours on this
site.
Thanks
One other comment:
Larkin, you are the Red Pill.
Hey, you guys are just trying to force freedom on me!
Just kidding!
I really appreciate the return to reason. Thanks.
ad veracondom? (hmmm..vell ok….)
I’m not sure which interview they were talking about Ron Paul
But I would like to deferent the old man
First he knows he can’t win which he told Lew Rockwell
He knows he can’t do anything if he did win
He does not believe in the constitution
He is an anarchist and believes the government is evil
He views himself as an educator and he has done more in educating people that government elites are a criminal organization (gateway drug)
And yes he could not tell the truth because he would have never got to that position
In his personal and political life there is no indication that he acted contrary to his ethics for money or power
Larkin Rose is making a good case against Despotism, but he is offering no realistic solution to Despotism. Despotism is here to stay. The strongest, most intelligent and most cunning among us will always rule everyone else in a despotic fashion. That is life. Deal with it.
*Larken
Rose arrogantly and naively believes that everyone has the same moral intelligence and respect for universal law that he does, and that the State is the only force preventing it from flourishing in others.
The Reign of Terror after the French Revolution is a case history of what happens when a state apparatus is swiftly removed. The desire to remove the monarchy was the belief by rational people that when a state power is removed everyone will naturally return to their free and rational selves. But what happened was incredible violence and a new religion…the Cult of Reason, where people in droves began worshiping Lady Liberty statues!
It demonstrated that the majority of people were not mature enough to handle self-government, objective reason, and self-responsiblity. Are we that much better off now?
Can the State (or money, or corporations) be evil? The word evil only applies to people, not things. The state is just a tool (as is money and a corporation), and can be used by good people or by evil people. If good people won’t make use of a powerful tool, evil people will. The same logic can be applied to guns.
Rose’s constant rants against authority are cathartic and entertaining, but reactionary and juvenile. Is there not such a thing as earned authority? Is it unjust that the dishwasher is not allowed to run the restaurant?
There are advantages to collective power, particularly with things like national defence (against, especially, powerful enemy state-run armies). This video does a thorough job of countering the anarchist ‘solutions’ to military threats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37CEsB3NK5w