Reasons against faith in governments

This is a draft to practice writing for a shorter version and is incomplete, might never be complete and in some sections is not consistently the best style of writing because it might not be revised later

This is the long version, a short version will be made later based on this

A article that is much shorter summarising the key points and made to be in hand out form may appear later, this is the long version and may include video links not included in the shorter article.  The shorter article will try to reference many specific individuals who focus their work on certain criticisms of government and their websites in a form small enough to print out as a hand out for mass distribution.

Overview

This article will have a section on information phobia followed by critiques of Governments.  Each type of critique may depend on a different contextually understood definition of government or of other words.

Why start with information phobia first

You can not understand the points of view presented in this article unless you first comprehend the effects of information phobia enough to be willing to read the article with an attempt at comprehension as opposed to fearing something bad will happen if people lose faith in Government, so before the critiques of government begin information phobia will be explained, however explaining information phobia is a framework for understanding the criticism of government influence that shall follow the information phobia section.

Types of critiques of government that will occur

In this article I will write about criticisms of government which either, criticise the ethics of it's influence, disprove it's existence, disprove the existence of certain specific governments or provide reason for society being better off with less governmental power for at least some governments in at least some areas of people's lives depending on the definition of government used.  Some critiques will be logical or philosophical disproofs of government's existence, others will be logical disproofs of the legitimacy of specific governments based on specific governments claims about themselves, other critiques will be based on empirical evidence about the consequences of governmental power, and finally a set of critique's against Government or specific governments will be explained regarding those whose claim certain religions endorse government, but how when properly understood those religions at the very least claim to suggest a certain limit that should be put on governmental power if  the religions are applicable for choosing lifestyle decisions. 

Objective consequences exist even if you do not believe in objective morality, therefore these critiques still hold as long as you do not want certain things done to you even if you do not like to call any or certain behaviors unethical.

Certain pressupositions exist in some of these critiques of Government like people ought not initiate violence.  So long as you agree you do not want certain consequences to happen to you even if you do not want to call violence unethical, you should still agree that if you do not want coercion done to you, you will be better off in a society that discourages violence.  If you are ok with doing violence to other people but do not want coercion done to yourself, you will find the only way to avoid receiving coercion against yourself is to avoid doing violence to other people.  This is because if you live in a society that opposes violence that society will use coercion on you if you try violence and if you live in a society that tolerates violence you will receive violence against you.  Therefor as long as you do not want coercion done to you these critiques still stand even if you do not want to call violence unethical.   As long as you do not want non defensive fraud initiated against you these critiques still stand even if you do not want to call non defensive lying, deceipt or fraud unethical.  As long as you want to live in a world where people do not snatch the food you are about to eat before you can get it in your mouth and risk starving you should agree some things ought not be done involving property claims in order to live in a world where you can eat food, even if you do not want to claim theft is unethical or that there even is such a thing as theft.

Information Phobia Section

The fundamental problem with governments is not unique to governments but sometimes occurs in a wide variety of ways and to varying degrees and a variety of motives either accidentally and or intentionally within other social instituitions, organizations or interactions between groups of people including but not limited to some private security organizations, corporations, religious groups, cults, cultures, tribes (not genetic or biological tribes but cultural tribes with the customs and traditions they pass on that influence the behavior of the next generation), organizations and instiuitions, friendships, dating relationships, family relationships, employer-employee relationships, marketing pyramids, marketing firms, educational instituitions, peer reviewed journals, both public and private schools and colleges, political organizations and political action groups, lobbying firms, gangs or groups of bullies, social cliques, high school status hiearchies involving the cool kids, nerds, geeks, jocks, dance or prom committees, cheerleaders, football or sports team members, et cetera, not for profit groups, charities, media organizations, musical bands, clubs, as well as so called grass roots organizations dedicated to various causes and even some so called anarchist groups.

This fundamental problem might be hard to listen to if a fear of processing, reading, listening to, watching, hearing, receiving, comprehending, understanding, meditating upon, consideruing or contemplating certain types of information has been accidentally or intentionally encouraged, implanted, peddled, displayed in the form of entertainment, taught, marketed to you, suggested to you or even pressured, bullied, coerced or beat into you, or simply absorbed through over hearing common types of conversations within the culture that sorrounds you.

This fundamental problem and various subsets of it have been called many things including but not limited to unethical influence, immoral influence, undue influence, being a bad influence, mind control, brainwashing, fraud, deceptive business practices, unjustifiable or hidden fines, charges, bills or fees, "the fine print," snake oil sales, unethical business practices, scams or scamming, misinformation, disinformation, maladaptive information, bad data, misleading data, biased and harmful propaganda or fake news, group think, rose tinted glasses, totalitarianism, racketeering, forced labor, violence, overt or covert slavery,  bad company, corruption, "not being neighborly."

Although some of the things on the list include certain types of people or information, avoiding listening to people or information is not the solution.  People who intentionally give out bad information in order to try to control people usually include with that information excuses not to listen to certain information in order to try to prevent someone from reading the very information that disproves the false information they are spreading.

People put labels on other people and ideas to make you fear accessing information but these labels sometimes apply to the person handing out the label to instill fear more than the person or ideas they want you to fear hearing

It is popular for religious people who want to keep other people's minds captive to use a list of many adjectives to describe people not to listen to as a means to prevent people from listening.  The descriptions these unethical people use to describe people they do not want you to listen to often apply to themselves better than the people they do not want you to listen to.  It is good to contemplate on the meanings of these terms to understand those who want to deceive you while at the same time not avoiding listening to a person or source of information simply because someone else labeled it as such.

List of Religious, Spiritual and Pop cultural labels or descriptions for bad ideas, persons, systems and forms of influence

To those who like to use religiously or spiritually oriented terminology or pop culture catchphrases the inexhaustive list can be extended further to the following types of unethical people, influence and organizational systems : spiritual abuse, sinful influence, morally degenerate influences, demonic attorneys, the devil's bargain, bargaining with the devil, demonic influence, demonic oppression, the devil's lies, lucifer, satan or the devil's plan, satan's kingdom, "the new world order," "the kingdom of the cults," worldliness, having the wrong worldview, not having a kingdom perspective, not seeing things from God's viewpoint, the tainted, moral defilement, polluting the mind, a moral plague or contagion, people who you should rescue having mercy mixed with fear not even touching the defiled or tainted clothes or flesh of those "which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts" by which implies their mental influence to exploit people's vices and hold their minds and bodies captive sometimes physically defiling themself in the process, not respecting agency or free will choices, suppressive persons or suppressive people, false teachers, false prophets,  unsaved people, the uniniated, the unenlightened, those who have not begun, the dead or the spiritually dead, non player charecters, those who mock God, those who mock God's laws, those who use grace as a license for sin, dark clouds without rain, those who have not seen the light, bad shepherds, the beast system, low vibrational people, idle hands, people with nothing better to do who go about and say unsubstantiated things that are not true,  those who pervert what is right, those who make the straight path crooked, those who curve reality, those who would say that a straight line has curvature, carnally minded individuals, those who have their mind set on the pleadures of the flesh in such a way as to influence them to be willingly controlled by unethical people as opposed to simply having their mind set on the health of the flesh, those whose love the belief in money, those who are greedy for ill gotten gain, those whose feet rush to evil, those who lie in wait for their own blood, those who do not have eternal values, those who do not have God's values, those who have wrong priorities, the unawake, the living dead, et cetera.  

Many people have studied unethical influence in Governments and religious organizations.  There are many different models but all share the one following thing in common an attempt to prevent access to information.  This attempt is done at least one of several ways

1 Use violence to kill or incapacitate and capture then relocate people who get physically to near the source of information.  An example could be a military, police or security officer guarding files that would expose corruption but are not destroyed out of their usefulness for some nefarious purpose.  Although, I am not claiming people have a right to access any and every file stored away because identity theft is problematic.  Another example could be killing or imprisoning those who talk to or communicate with certain people.

2 Use the threat of violence to discourage accessing or sharing certain information, such as beating or torturing prisoners of war, prisoners in jail or school children who say certain things

3 Shunning or socially stigmatizing those who give unacceptable viewpoints including possibly refusing to trade or share food or resources necessary to live with them or deplatforming them from online social media or closing their bank accounts

4 Suggesting to them something bad will happen to them if they access certain information.  They could be told accessing such information will  influence them to make decisions that bring harm to themselves or others or that others who might access the information could be influenced by it in such a way.  Or more religiously minded people may be told accessing such information will curse them, give them bad Karma or bring God's dissatisfaction with them or even cause them to experience divine punishment.

Several individuals have made models about unethical influence

Depility, Deception, Depandance and Dread

Studying brainwashing of prisoners of war has been made of Debility, Deception and Dread.  This model was modified for cults to include Deception, Depandancy and Dread but not Debilitation.  In the case of prisoners of war they initially know they are being told to repeat false information but can not leave because they are debilitated where as in the case of cult members they might believe a certain portion of the information they are presented with is true which results in them being afraid to leave even though in many but not all cases there is no physical debilitation to prevent them from leaving.  In the case of public school all four are present as violence and the threat of violence is used to prevent children from leaving and also people in society around them deceive them into thinking a much larger percentage of the information taught at public schools is true than actually is.

Robert Jay Lifton's eight points

Robert Jay Lifton wrote a book called, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism," which lists eight criteria to determine if a Government is Totalitarian.  These eight criteria are used today to evaluate if religious cults are dangerous but were originally designed based on evaluating case studies interviewing people who left China willingly or unwillingly after experiencing attempts at Thought Reform done to them by the Chinese government.

Steven Hassan's bite model

Steven Hassan made a model for a process called the strategic interactive approach to replace forcible deprogramming.  People who joined groups called cults were engaging in what some people would describe as self destructive behaviors.  These people experienced information phobia to such a large extent people could not easily talk to them for prolonged periods of time to explain what happened to them without kidnapping them to try to deprogram them against their will.  The strategic interactive approach is based on an attempt to find ways to talk to these people without them fleeing out of fear of hearing information so that you could inform people about the undue influence being used against them without kidnapping them.  The strategic interaction approach is based on a BITE model which means Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotion.

Twisted scriptures by, "Mary Alice Chrnalogar"

This book explains how people quote Bible verses or use religious sounding language to make people afraid to access information that criticizes practices of a religious group they are in.  It should be referenced again later in the section of critiques of excuses for Government or specific governments done by religious people

List of Government criticisms

First Criticism - Government is mind control.  Or more precisely, "blind" obedience to Government officials is currently achieved through mind control

I already explained in depth about how mind control works through information phobia in the previous section.  If you disagree with the etymology of government meaning mind control from Latin that is irrelevant because even if the etymology was different, the real world actions of Government officials and their followers can be evaluated.  Coerced Public School attendance meets the criteria for mind control as has already been described.  Furthermore people's obedience to what they perceive to be Government is encouraged through a process of undue influence in the same way religious cults use mind control as described in the previous section on information phobia.

In Modern English

To Govern - To control

Mental - Related to the mind

Latin a letter "B" "b" could be raplaced with a "V" "v"

Gubernare "to control"

mens "mind"

Alternatives to the word mind for "ment" which still could retain the meaning of slavery when combined with "to control"

a : concrete result, object, or agent of a (specified) action <embankment>

b : concrete means or instrument of a (specified) action <entertainment>

2

a : action : process <development>

b : place of a (specified) action <encampment>

3

: state or condition resulting from a (specified) action <amazement>

Origin of -MENT

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin -mentum; akin to Latin -men, suffix denoting concrete result, Greek -mat-, -ma

http://web.archive.org/web/20111118234244/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ment

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ment

So instead of meaning mind control, Government could mean : the instrument of control which could mean the instrument of slavery ; the state or condition of being controlled which could mean the state or condition of being enslaved ; the state or condition of controlling, which could mean the state or condition of enslaving ; the process of being controlled which could mean the process of being enslaved ; the process of controlling which could mean the process of enslaving ; the place where you are controlled which could mean the place where you are enslaved ; the place where you control which could mean the place where you enslave someone else ; the action of being controlled which could mean the action of being enslaved ; the action of controlling which could mean the action of enslaving

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=204aGDVa3Vw&t=3980s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=204aGDVa3Vw&list=PLnzMmEt4pIb985hO8sonHThhauAyn_doB&index=3&t=3980s

Starts at 3980 seconds or 1 hour 6 minutes and 20 seconds

Mark Passio - Natural Law Seminar - New Haven, CT - Part 3 of 3

https://m.youtube.com/c/MarkPassio

Second Criticism - "Blind" Order Following is unethical or dangerous

If you do an action because someone told you to do it without first evaluating whether or not it is ethical to take the action then you have committed a moral wrong decision by choosing not to exercise your conscious to make sure what you are doing is not unethical first.

 Even if the action you are told to do is not unethical your decision to do it without first evaluating if it would be unethical to obey could be classified as bad intentions that come from a evil mindset that does not care if harm is being done as long as you do what you are told. 

 If someone tells you to do something and you contemplate it and conclude it is not unethical first before doing it then your intentions are not morally wrong.  Even if it is not unethical to do an action someone else tells you to do, you are not morally obligated to do that action unless all other possible actions remaining are unethical to do. 

 If you do not believe there is such a thing as morality then think of it this way.  Doing an action because someone asked you to do so without thinking about the physical consequences of the action first may result in unwanted physical consequences that could have been otherwise avoided happening.  Doing everything a Government official tells you to do without first contemplating the consequences of obeying them is incredibly physically dangerous.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSqBNGxLiAs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSqBNGxLiAs&list=PLnzMmEt4pIb83lZgEA3nALsDM1QogyvC0&index=17

Mark Passio - The Cult Of Ultimate Evil - Order-Followers & The Destruction Of The Sacred Feminine

https://m.youtube.com/c/MarkPassio

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://m.youtube.com/c/MarkPassio

Learn more at Mark Passio's website

whatonearthishappening.com

http://web.archive.org/web/*/whatonearthishappening.com

Third, Fourth and Fifth criticism -  Three Reasons Government Does not exist numbered 1, 2 and 3 in Larken Rose's video, "The Whole Problem (and Solution) in Two Minutes"

1 - you can not delegate a right you do not have

2 - you can not have a moral obligation to do what you think is wrong

3 - you can not alter morality by means of legislation

The Whole Problem (and Solution) in Two Minutes

youtube.com/watch?v=u-sRbR2QQ7w

http://web.archive.org/web/20210829131508/youtube.com/watch?v=u-sRbR2QQ7w

https://m.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://m.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose

Learn more at Larken Rose website

Larkenrose.com

Sixth, Seventh and Eigth criticism - Show me the evidence your laws apply, Jurisdictions and duty to protect citizens -

http://web.archive.org/web/20191122043909/http://marcstevens.net/

 Marc Stevens

Sixth criticism - Jurisdiction

Seventh criticism - Show me the evidence your laws apply

Marc Stevens: Show Me the Evidence Your Laws Apply

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6YFgKyTq0GU

http://web.archive.org/web/20210325221822/http://youtube.com/watch?v=6YFgKyTq0GU

Cop Block

https://m.youtube.com/c/TheCopBlock

Eighth criticism - 

If a government is a instiuition that has a duty to protect it's citizens then any instiuition claiming to be a government that also claims not to have a duty to protect it's citizens can not exist as a government. 

 Since court's have ruled the United States government does not have a duty to protect it's citizens except when they are held in police custody the United States government does not exist or only exists for those held in police custody or in other words it only exists for people it arrests, captures or forcibly detains against their will and does not exist for those who have done no wrong but want protection from violent people.

"In the modern version, fealty is now termed citizenship, as a constructed person who is a member of the political body who swears allegiance in exchange for a duty of protection from the government. However it has been ruled time and time again in the supreme courts that the police and the government have NO DUTY to protect. And if there is no duty to protect, then there is no implied or inferred agreement of fealty or ownership."

https://earthcoinage.com/the-history-of-the-feudal-system/

http://web.archive.org/web/20210510021236/https://earthcoinage.com/the-history-of-the-feudal-system/

H Rearden

"The SCOTUS in 1913 defined a citizen as: ” a member of the body politic, owing a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection, these are reciprocal obligations, each a consideration for the other. Both duties are required for there to be a “citizen”. The SCOTUS has also ruled in more than one case that the state has no obligation to protect anyone. If there is no obligation or duty on the part of the state to protect anyone then it stands to reason that there is no duty of allegiance to the state. Thus in theory in the USA nobody is a citizen according to the SCOTUS via it’s 1913 ruling in Luria v. United States and subsequent rulings in which it has stated that the state has no obligation to protect anyone."

https://everything-voluntary.com/birthright-citizenship-kerfuffle-is-mostly-a-get-out-the-vote-tactic

http://web.archive.org/web/20201027185424/https://everything-voluntary.com/birthright-citizenship-kerfuffle-is-mostly-a-get-out-the-vote-tactic

a member of the body politic holding a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=a+member+of+the+body+politic+holding+a+duty+of+allegiance+in+return+for+a+duty+of+protection&ia=web

NO STATES NO CITIZENS No Duty to Protect - Marc Stevens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe_8_HK5EYU

http://web.archive.org/web/20220326051703/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe_8_HK5EYU

Mach 1

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOVadnUHGqHeuNB_BiPip_w?app=desktop

http://web.archive.org/web/20220326052051/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOVadnUHGqHeuNB_BiPip_w?app=desktop

Police have no CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to protect YOU!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TUjo8epJG2A

http://web.archive.org/web/20220326050243/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TUjo8epJG2A

THAWK3

http://www.youtube.com/user/THAWK3

http://web.archive.org/web/20120217100800/http://www.youtube.com/user/THAWK3

Warren v. District of Columbia

https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20151007203415/https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html

The Police: No Duty To Protect Individuals

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0503/

http://web.archive.org/web/20190405144525/https://gunowners.org/sk0503/

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=79-394+police&ia=web

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+stevens+duty+to+protect&ia=web

Ninth Criticism - Democide Data

murder of people by a government which has power over them

https://www.wordnik.com/words/democide

http://web.archive.org/web/20151018215648/https://www.wordnik.com/words/democide

Governments typically kill more of their own citizens than citizens of other governments.  You might think you need your government to protect you from a foreign government waging war against you but a foreign government waging war against you is less likely to kill you than your own government therefore if removal of your own government does not increase the number of people killed in your geographic region by foreign governments waging war against your government-less region by a number higher than the number of people living in that region your own government would have killed you are actually safer without a government than with one.

https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/PRE-20TH.GIF

http://web.archive.org/web/20010624131736/https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/PRE-20TH.GIF

https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

http://web.archive.org/web/20010501114236/https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

Tenth Criticism - Governments create useless jobs that waste time and do not help anyone

David Graeber - Bullshit Jobs

Abolition of work - Bob Black - Robert Black

Criticisms related to specific governments

The United States

5th ammendment net taxation impossible

If right to revolt against Britain exists then right to revolt against United States exists - Right to abolish in it's own documents

Bill of rights lists things we are better off if Government does not do to us

Constituition of no authority spooner

Criticisms related to religions

Religious excuses for at least some government actions are debunked by religious consistency if you wish for a religion to guide your life choices.

Mary Alice's distinction between abusive and non abusive Churches or Bible based and non Bible Based authority modified and generalised to apply to governments and to apply to the deposit of faith instead of the Bible alone

More information

Adfitional source for a wide variety of Anarchist, Voluntaryist Minarchist, Libertarian and Nationalist viewpoints which do not all agree with each other

attackthesystem by Keith Preston

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma-before-parenthesis-or-after/

http://web.archive.org/web/20220310065351/https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma-before-parenthesis-or-after/

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sinful+influence&ia=web

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0464719/plotsummary

http://web.archive.org/web/20220325170019/https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0464719/plotsummary

https://biblehub.com/jude/1-23.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20211023191413/https://biblehub.com/jude/1-23.htm

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-6.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20130608193238/https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-6.htm

https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/5-13.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20130613025725/https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/5-13.htm

https://biblehub.com/acts/13-10.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20130609222406/https://biblehub.com/acts/13-10.htm

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-conservative-social-psychologist/202004/us-government-mind-control-experiments