"AUTHORITY"
A FICTIONAL PERFORMANCE
BACKED BY VIOLENCE
It is immoral for me to steal from, assault, or coerce you. That immorality does not change whether I act alone or backed by ten, a thousand, or a million votes. No amount of agreement can transform a wrong into a right. “Authority” is an illusion, a fiction created to justify immorality by attributing it to institutions. But voting cannot grant rights that do not exist, just as titles or badges cannot change immoral to moral.
Before we dive deeper, we must first ask: What exactly is “authority”? Is it the ability to punish disobedience? Is it the “right” to command others? Or is it simply the power to control, justified by tradition and fear? The word gets used as if it describes something solid, permanent, and universally accepted – yet it unravels the moment we examine it.
“Authority” doesn’t exist in the world – it exists only in the mind. It is a shared hallucination, programmed into us from birth. We are not just taught to obey; we are taught to believe that obedience is righteous – that submission is order. This illusion is maintained through rituals disguised as normal life: saluting flags, swearing oaths, standing for anthems, voting in elections, obeying dress code, and respecting job titles. Uniforms, courtrooms, badges, ballots – all are symbols meant to make “authority” feel real. But remove the symbols, and what remains? Just one human giving orders to another, backed by the threat of violence. “Authority” is not a truth – it is a performance. And belief in that performance is the root delusion that makes systemic control possible. You are free by nature. But as long as you believe in “authority”, you will live as if you are not. Without that belief, the entire structure crumbles – because the “moral right” it claims to wield could never have been delegated in the first place. Consider this inescapable truth: If no one individual has the moral Right to initiate harm, coercion, or theft against you or another human being – then from where does any institution or group claim such a right?
A Right is a moral entitlement to act without causing unjust harm. Not because it has been permitted, but because it is inherently just.
So ask yourself: If you never had the right to begin with, how can you give it away?
The answer is, you can’t. Moral Rights are not physical property – they cannot be transferred, signed away, or voted into existence. They are inherent, rooted in Natural Law, which applies equally to all. What is wrong for one person to do remains wrong, no matter how many people agree to it, or under what flag they operate.
If I cannot rob my neighbor, I cannot vote for someone else to rob them on my behalf. A thousand votes for theft do not transform it into justice – they only create a majority illusion: a collective agreement of immorality, dressed as law. If I cannot force my will upon you, I cannot empower a government to do so in my name.
No amount of paperwork, no parliamentary decision, no “social contract” signed without my explicit, uncoerced and voluntary consent can give anyone the Right to rule me.
Power is the ability to control. A Right is the moral justification to do so. “Authority” often confuses the two. Here, it is crucial to recall the distinction we established in Chapter 3: Natural Law is discovered truth – universal and eternal. Not created. Man-made law, on the other hand, is merely imposed opinion, local and changeable. “Authority”, therefore, is nothing more than a false claim to enforce these made-up opinions as if they were true objective Law. A performance always backed by the threat of violence.
Picture this: A man in an alley confronts you, demands your money, and threatens you with violence if you refuse. We call him a criminal – a mugger. His act is universally condemned as theft and assault. Now, when a man in a uniform, backed by government regulation, demands a portion of your earnings under threat of forceful imprisonment or asset seizure, what is the fundamental difference? The costume, the legal jargon, and the system that rewards him are all designed to mask the underlying coercion. Yet if the act is wrong for an individual, can it truly become right when performed by an agent of “authority”? Legality does not change the morality of the act – it merely changes the costume.
From another angle, imagine something as natural as planting a seed in your own garden. You water it. You nurture it. You harm no one. You cause no loss. Yet because a piece of paper declares it “illegal,” men with guns arrive. They fine you, assault you, and cage you, or confiscate your property. The only immoral act is that of the aggression and harm performed in the name of the state. If you initiated no harm, then what was the actual crime? Was it the act itself – or was it your disobedience to an arbitrary rule? This reveals a deeper truth: “authority’s” laws almost always punish not harm, but defiance.
Rights are either universal, or they are not Rights at all, they are permissions – granted by power, and revoked just as easily.
Understanding this profound truth – that Rights cannot be delegated – is not just an intellectual exercise. It is key to recognize that what we often call “law” or “governance” is, in reality, an intricate system of control built upon a foundational lie. This is not just theory. It is the lens that reveals the truth behind every law, badge, and border: that what we’ve accepted as “authority” is nothing more than control, dressed in “moral” disguise. And once you see that – you can never unsee it.
True legitimacy does not require coercion. When power relies on intimidation, it reveals itself as domination. If something necessitates violence or punishment for its acceptance – or existence – can it truly poses moral Rights? Stripped of its branding, how is “authority” anything other than tyranny?
Perhaps more importantly: who gave it this supposed legitimacy? Can morality be inherited through titles? If you don’t have the Right to rule over others, how do you bestow that right to someone else?
“Authority” is also defined by its vagueness. It thrives on being undefined – a mist that shapeshifts according to whoever wields it. But moral truth is not vague. It is simple: Do not cause unjustified harm. So why is the concept of “authority” so complex? Because it must hide its contradictions to survive.
Let’s break this down further. If morality is based on whether an action causes unjustified harm – as we proved earlier – then theft, coercion, and violence remain immoral regardless of who performs them. To illustrate this: Imagine a group of neighbors coming together and deciding that one of them – someone aggressive, one with a short temper, and a gun – should have the power to search everyone’s home without consent, just in case someone might be hiding something dangerous. He doesn’t need a reason to harm you, and he won’t face any consequences if he does. In fact, if you resist his intrusion, you are at fault and the one who gets punished. Would you consider that moral? Would you feel safe? Or terrorized? Now imagine they dress that same man in a uniform, give him a badge, a legal exemption, and call him “law enforcement.” Did the morality of the action change, or just the costume of the intruder?
If your neighbor has no right to enter your home uninvited, demand your compliance, or dictate what you are allowed to own, at what point does that right appear from nowhere? Does it materialize the moment he joins a police force? Does it come from the uniform he puts on in the morning? When he gets in his patrol car after breakfast? Perhaps when he clocks in for his shift? Or does the rulebook he carries, stamped by politicians, miraculously turn his actions moral?
Let’s ask plainly: Where is the magical line between individual immorality and institutional “authority”? What ceremony transforms trespass into inspection? What ritual transmutes theft into taxation, coercion into governance, and assault into public service? If we cannot identify the precise point where this moral alchemy occurs – where immorality is somehow transformed into righteousness – then that point doesn’t exist. And if that point doesn’t exist, neither does the “authority” built upon it.
This is where the myth of the “social contract” enters – another lie to justify fictional “authority.” We are told that we agreed to be governed. That by living within a set of man-made borders, drawn before we were born, we have somehow consented to be ruled – that we agreed to every made-up law, ruler, and punishment that follows. But no contract is valid without explicit, fully informed, and voluntary agreement. And no one ever consented.
Consider the absurdity: If you give consent – if you say, “I allow you to rule me,” then that agreement, and any “authority” it creates, should end the moment you say, “I no longer allow it.” Anything less is not consent – it is captivity. If “authority” were truly based on your permission, then your lack of permission would also have the power to end it. But try it. Refuse to comply. Withdraw your consent. You’ll be met with nothing but force and punishment. That fact alone exposes the truth: “authority” is not built on agreement – it is control enforced by violence. So if consent is not given freely but extracted through force, was it ever consent to begin with?
Ask yourself: When did you sign this contract? Where is your copy? Can a contract be called legitimate if declining it leads to punishment? Consent given under threat is not consent – it is compliance through fear. Yet, society treats this phantom agreement as sacred law. Governments claim moral “authority” through it, but morality does not come from fine print.
Rights are not transfered from an office. Immorality cannot be legalized. And evil does not turn into virtue by delegation.
Being born in a place you did not choose and could not refuse, is not consent to be ruled by a stranger in a suit. There is no willing agreement offered. No negotiation. No consent. Just birth – and the immediate claim of ownership. What kind of system builds its power on that?
If you are told to follow rules you never created, enforced by people you never chose, under threat of punishment you never agreed to – are you free, or just well-trained?
Earlier, we established Natural Law as the objective framework for morality – rooted in the universal principles of Truth, Autonomy, Harm and Justice. These principles are not created by man, they are discovered. Much like gravity or fire. You don’t need a law to tell you not to jump off a cliff – the natural consequence deters you. They exist regardless of belief or enforcement.
In contrast, man-made law is a set of rules and regulations. A construct that is created by individuals and enforced by institutions. They are arbitrary, varies across fictional borders, and justified through coercion or the threat of violence. These made-up rules are contingent and changeable. And unlike Natural Law, they rely on external “authority” to exist and are not moral by default.
Here lies the contradiction: “authority” is built on man-made law, yet claims moral legitimacy – a quality that only Natural Law can present. Man-made law often violates the very principles that Natural Law upholds. When a decree legalizes theft, coercion, or deception, even in the name of “order”, it is in direct conflict with the moral structure of reality. If Natural Law says, “Do not harm another without justified cause,” and man-made law says, “Harm is permitted if the state declares it necessary,” then which law is legitimate? And which one do you obey? One reflects truth. The other reflects control. Man-made law is shaped by agenda, power, and influence. It bends to the will of whoever holds the pen. But truth does not bend. The rules of morality are not subjected to consensus or command. They are eternal and exist independently of politics, immune to bureaucracy. As we explored in Chapter 4, one obeys Principle, the other operates on fleeting utility.
So, when “authority” claims the moral right to act based on man-made legislation, it is not upholding Law, it is violating the only Law that matters? When man-made law contradicts Natural Law, it seizes to be law at all, and becomes sanctioned injustice. Obedience to such laws is not moral, it is submission. And enforcement is not righteous, it is state authorized violence, presented as civic duty.
True Law does not require enforcement. It only requires recognition. Natural Law does not need police; it only needs awareness. Its consequence is not punishment, but natural correction. “Authority “, then, is the name given to those who claim the right to override the Laws of nature and conscience with declarations of power – men playing god. But declarations do not alter truth. They only expose the delusion of those who believe they can command morality – when in reality, they only suppress it.
Ask yourself: If a stranger cannot dictate what you eat, why should a government have that power? If your body is your property, why is it treated as a legal battleground for corporate profit? “Authority” doesn’t protect your sovereignty or well-being – it manages your obedience for the benefit of the system itself.
No one has the right to rule. And no one ever did.
Ultimately, “authority” is merely a costume worn by violence, tailored by tradition, and made believable by fear. Think about it: Does a carpenter gain the moral right to murder if he simply changes his career to politics? Of course not. No moral Law can ever be conjured or created – yet “authority” claims this power. The thread that holds it all together has always been fiction.
This isn’t theoretical. The illusion of “authority” doesn’t just distort morality – it shapes the laws we live under. It punishes freedom and rewards compliance. And the evidence is everywhere.
Consider laws criminalizing acts like collecting rainwater or living off-grid. In many parts of the world, governments impose heavy fines or penalties on individuals who attempt to live self-sufficiently. These laws, often justified under “regulations” or “safety concerns”, strip individuals of their Natural Right to utilize resources freely provided by nature.
In South-Africa, selling raw milk is illegal, forcing small farmers and consumers to navigate a system that dictates what they can produce, and consume. Despite raw milk being a natural, unprocessed product enjoyed by humans for millennia, it is outlawed under the guise of “health and safety”, while people continue to die from pesticides and chemicals “allowed” on other produce. This criminalization serves corporate interests, favoring large dairy processors while stripping individuals of their right to decide what is administered into their bodies. These laws reveal how “authority” enforces compliance to benefit a system more invested in profit and control than in respecting individual freewill choice or well-being.
A systemic need to suppress independence to sustain its power.
This pattern isn’t new – it’s ancient. “Authority” has always written its power into law, regardless of morality. Slavery was legal. So was segregation. Apartheid wasn’t rogue violence – it was standardized cruelty, enforced through official channels with bureaucratic efficiency. Entire populations were stripped of dignity and autonomy, not by criminals, but by men with badges and documents.
During the witch trails, innocent women were tortured and murdered based on hysteria and superstition, all under legal sanction. Their deaths weren’t crimes; they were judicial procedures. “Authority” wrote its fears into law, then enforced them as if they were truths.
For decades, it was illegal to love the wrong person. Homosexuality was criminalized. People were arrested, beaten, even institutionalized – not for harming others, but for living outside the moral code “authority” had written into law.
Colonial regimes across the globe stole land from indigenous people through signed treaties and proclamations that meant nothing to those being displaced. “Authority” declared ownership over what it had no right to claim, then punished those who resisted as criminals.
These were not accidents. These were not exceptions. These were the rule. All of it legal.
And even today, freedom is something you must ask for. You need permits to build on your own land. Licenses to catch food. Permits to gather firewood. Fines for growing vegetables in front yards. In some places, selling lemonade without a license can result in police intervention. What kind of freedom must be scheduled and stamped?
The pattern is consistent: the more self-sustained you are, the more dangerous you are to “authority”. Not because you threaten others – but because you don’t need permission.
The laws may change, but the illusion remains. What was once called justice becomes horror in hindsight – always too late. “Authority” does not evolve. It adapts to survive. And it survives by criminalizing freedom – one law at a time.
If you still believe in “authority”, ask yourself: Why must it punish your refusal? Why does it need cages for dissent, but none for Justice? The answer is simple: “authority” is not protection – it is oppressors who take permissions by force, then disguise it as law. It was never real. You are not ruled by leaders. You are ruled by a lie. And beneath the costume, it has always been the same: one human threatening another, so that the system may survive.
If you still believe you are free, ask yourself: what would happen if you acted like it? And if the answer is punishment, then you were never free to begin with.
In the next chapter, we follow the consequences of that belief – where fiction becomes slavery.
“Authority is an illusion, and every last citizen has the willpower and ability to kill a king.”
~ Toru Toba, The Genius Prince’s Guide to Raising a Nation Out of Debt (Hey, How About Treason?)