Larken Rose Quotes

From his "I'm Allowed to Rob You" video

The Constitution is not an agreement between anybody. It's a unilateral, total[ly] bogus ASSERTION that certain people would have the right to initiate violence against others. Though the aggression was theoretically "limited," the thing still pretended to give some people the RIGHT to steal and threaten. And the fact that you're not sure how things would work WITHOUT such robbery and thuggery doesn't make those things good. As the video suggests, read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason."

There's no such thing as a "voluntary government." And no, we don't need a new agreement (nor was there ever an old agreement). We need people to understand the concept of self-ownership. That's all. When they stop hallucinating "authority," they will stop thinking in the collectivist paradigm, and will start acting like people, instead of livestock. We need people to ditch the most dangerous superstition, and choose free will instead. It's a lot to ask, but it's already beginning.

My "alternative" to advocating robbery is ... NOT advocating robbery. It's looney to pretend that I have some obligation to explain how every detail of society would work WITHOUT robbery, before you'll even consider the possibility. Advocating extortion, because you can't quite picture how things would work if you didn't, is cowardly and immoral, even if 99.999% of people do it.

If you had cancer in your body, and then it was removed, how would you "reconstruct" it? You WOULDN'T. Your question STILL implies the implementation of some centralized, master plan. You view it as "evading" when I don't offer one, because (again) you expect me to have some over-arching agenda that I want foisted upon humanity. I don't. What I want is for people to give up one particular absurd and horribly dangerous superstition: the belief in "government" and "authority."

"Anarchy" is what is. "Government" is a mythological entity. Without the right to rule--without "authority"--it's merely a gang of thugs masquerading as "government." The reason you think freedom and self-ownership "never works" is because almost everyone (including you) is thoroughly indoctrinated into authority-worship, and as a result, don't know how to act as adult, responsible human beings. All they know how to do is whine for a better master (and they don't even get that).

Are you really saying that if the state wasn't robbing you, you have no idea how you would get the necessities of life? How about BUYING them?!?! When you are hungry, do you go shop for food, or do you VOTE for someone who you hope will FORCE you to give HIM money so HE can buy you food with it?

My solution--which I've only said a few thousand times--is this: I own me, you own you. Understand it, and act accordingly. For starters, that means no ruling class. Check out my new video, "If You Were King." A ruling class CANNOT fix society. The most useful thing the Constitution did was to demonstrate that "limited government" is a complete impossibility, and that a "servant government" is an oxymoron.

So, your brilliant solution to the fact that humans are prone to violence is to give SOME of those humans PERMISSION to initiate violence, in the name of "authority," "law" and "government." Have you ever actually THOUGHT about that batty notion, or do you just repeat it because that's what you were taught? It's the usual excuse for a ruling class, and it's profoundly idiotic: "I don't trust people, so let's give some of them the power to boss us around and rob us." Freaking brilliant.

Here are YOUR words: "the only thing that prohibits the Strong preying on the Weak is law." What do you think "law" is? It is COMMANDS, backed by threats of VIOLENCE, issued by mere human beings who are IMAGINED (by you and most others) to have the RIGHT to initiate violence against others. Ergo, you think the solution to man's tendency toward aggression is to CONDONE a really big aggressor.

So I need someone to rob me, so he can buy an army, with which to protect me from robbers. What's really sad is that MOST people think that's a reasonable position to take. It's not.

The Constitution "guarantees our freedom"? What do the IRS, the DEA, the ATF, and the rest of the fascists cite as the source of their supposed "authority"? Based on what do the political crooks claim the right to murder people around the world, and force YOU to pay for it? What is it that they pretend gave them the right to RULE YOU? Answer: the Constitution. The fact that you still think it PROTECTS you, while it is used as the excuse for controlling and robbing you, is sad.

Look at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Which of those things do YOU have the right to do? Tax? Regulate? The answer is, NONE of them. Hence, the document pretended to create a super-human ruling class. The notion that there can be a legitimate "government"--a myth the Constitution reinforces--is the entire problem. I realize that right now, that sounds like blasphemy to you, as it did to me years ago. But it's still true.

Presuming you like food, suppose I forcibly robbed you, and bought you some mediocre, ridiculously expensive food with it. Would that be okay with you? Would you view that as me benevolently providing a service for you,which you would "appreciate," or would you view it as me ROBBING you? It's bad enough that the crooks say "this is for your own good," but when their VICTIMS start repeating that lie, that's just pathetic.

If I declared that I "represent" you, and then I tell my neighbor that he's allowed to rob you, what would you think of that? So why do you accept such lunacy when others did it?

Despite the arrogance of the Preamble, "We the people" never agreed to ANY of it. The fact that the few guys who wrote that pretended to be speaking on behalf of FOUR MILLION people who WEREN'T THERE is bad enough, but to pretend it STILL constitutes an "agreement," almost two centuries after everyone involved died, is batty. Again, Lysander Spooner logically slaughtered the notion that the Constitution constitutes a contract in any way, shape or form.

There hasn't been a "gunman" at your door for the same reason that obedient slaves don't get whipped. You won't even acknowledge the underlying threat against you because your masters have "darkened your moral and mental vision," and have "annihilated your power of reason," and convinced you that your enslavement is proper and right (to quote Frederick Douglass). You can't see the cage because you were trained not to see it, and you hate those who point it out to you.

Yes, that is the line we're all taught: that "necessity" and the benefit to the "common good" make it not COUNT as theft when politicians steal. Trouble is, that's a lie. If I stole $100 from you, said it was necessary, and gave you a moldy sandwich, would that make it okay? After all, you got a benefit, and I declared it to be "needed." We are taught the lie of "government," "law" and "taxation," so we won't recognize the extortion, assault and enslavement for what it is.

The "philosophical underpinnings of our system," including the "consent of the governed" BS, are insane. The pseudo-religious rituals by which the parasite class pretending to acquire the RIGHT to rule are completely bogus and horribly destructive. And yes, it is about RIGHTS, not just "powers." If people didn't imagine the parasites to have the RIGHT to rob us, it wouldn't happen.

So things that EVERYONE WANTS wouldn't exist if no one was FORCING everyone to pay for them? You really think filling in a pothole is beyond the capacity of a free market? I'm guessing you don't live in the U.S., if you think "health care systems" exist BECAUSE of "government." (I also guess that because you use the term "workers" the way a Marxist would.) You're arguing that people left in freedom would not or could not provide for themselves, but people robbed and controlled will.