Profile image
By Christopher Watson
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Our Society Rests on This Ridiculous Myth, Still Believed by the Masses!

Friday, March 24, 2017 21:04
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

The concept of “authority” depends upon the concepts of right and wrong (i.e., morality). To wit, having “authority” does not merely mean having the ability to forcibly control other people, something possessed by countless thugs, thieves and gangs who are not referred to as “authority”; it means having the right to control other people, which implies that those being controlled have a moral obligation to obey, not just to avoid punishment but also because such obedience (being “law-abiding”) is morally good and disobedience (”breaking the law”) is morally bad.
Share this video fare and wide.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 3 comments
  • Just sharing a new site i found. Loving it so far. Refreshing actually.

  • True enough, but how did we come to believe in this myth?

    Once, people believed the myth that it was the divine right of kings or priests which gave them the legitimate authority to declare what was right or wrong. Then we became enlightened enough to realize that kings and priests were only frail and faulty human beings just like the rest of us and so, through blood and suffering, we rejected that myth. But then we took up another myth, equally as absurd.

    We became convinced that one person is capable of accurately morphing himself into another person and gave this actor the title of “representative”. Then we allowed a new government to be established based on this absurdity multiplied a thousand times over.

    In this system, we believe our wonderful actor is capable of re-presenting not just one, but millions of others at the same time, so that we needed only to select a few of these actors to re-present the entire mass of people that comprise the nation. Furthermore, we accept that having the status of re-presenting the mass of people grants these actors legitimate authority to rule over any mere individual who is obviously only a small part of the whole mass these actors re-present.

    In effect, we have replaced our kings with so-called “re-representatives” of ourselves and think this guarantees us freedom and liberty. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be laughable.

    Now this sad state of affairs has led to a strange phenomenon of our times, and one which will probably astound our descendants. It’s the doctrine you have identified in your article and it’s based on this triple hypothesis:

    - the total inertness of the individual
    - the omnipotence of the law
    - the infallibility of the representative legislator

    Now what could go wrong?

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.