What do you think?
Rate this book
The Most Dangerous Superstition
The primary threat to freedom and justice is not greed, or hatred, or any of the other emotions or human flaws usually blamed for such things. Instead, it is one ubiquitous superstition which infects the minds of people of all races, religions and nationalities, which deceives decent, well-intentioned people into supporting and advocating violence and oppression. Even without making human beings one bit more wise or virtuous, removing that one superstition would remove the vast majority of injustice and suffering from the world.
210 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
About the author
Larken Rose
11 books124 followersLarken Rose is an outspoken advocate of the principles of self-ownership, non-aggression and a stateless society, and is the author of a number of books (including "The Most Dangerous Superstition") and creator of numerous articles and videos.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews
October 16, 2014
The book's title is not an exaggeration. It exposes a superstition that virtually all of us are taught from our infancy, and few of us ever outgrow. Do you think you have put all the fables of your childhood behind you, along with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? Have you grown up to become an independent-minded adult? Reading this book is a good way to find out.
Little children learn morality from their parents: things are good or bad because Mommy and Daddy SAID so. A little later, they may be taught that things are good or bad because God SAID so, in some Holy Book. And still later, when they are taught "civics" in government schools, they will be taught that things are good or bad because "It's the law." (And it's GOOD to obey the law, BAD to break it.") But "the law" is just whatever politicians SAY it is.
A person becomes an adult when outgrows the need to be given moral commandments from people he thinks of as "authorities," and learns to judge for himself what is right or wrong.
The "most dangerous superstition" referred to in the title is the idea of "authority," which includes all belief in "government." No, that's not a "spoiler;" this is something Rose lays out on Page 2 of the book. He doesn't deny that all the legislators, police, bureaucrats and soldiers exist -- they clearly do. But the thing that makes "government" something more than a gang of thugs is the respect -- even reverence -- in which it is held by the people it rules. "Government" is commonly believed to have a RIGHT to rule us, and we commonly believe ourselves to have a DUTY to obey their commands (which are called "laws.") Rose unleashes a ferocious array of arguments proving that neither that RIGHT nor that DUTY can logically -- or morally -- exist. If that sounds silly to you, YOU need to read the book.
This is a remarkable book, remarkable for its honesty, its logic, its passion and the profound importance of its conclusions. There is also much to admire in Rose's clear, concise writing. He discusses important ideas in clear, everyday language, without bogging down in philosophical technicalities or becoming boring. It is an exciting book, filled with purely brilliant insight -- but don't be surprised if you find yourself fighting the relentless logic of his conclusions so that you can't read more than a few pages at a time.
It is also a very important book, important the way Atlas Shrugged -- or Tom Paine's Common Sense -- are important. The most dangerous superstition IS dangerous because it enslaves our minds, which leads to the enslavement of our whole lives. This is a book to set us free.
Little children learn morality from their parents: things are good or bad because Mommy and Daddy SAID so. A little later, they may be taught that things are good or bad because God SAID so, in some Holy Book. And still later, when they are taught "civics" in government schools, they will be taught that things are good or bad because "It's the law." (And it's GOOD to obey the law, BAD to break it.") But "the law" is just whatever politicians SAY it is.
A person becomes an adult when outgrows the need to be given moral commandments from people he thinks of as "authorities," and learns to judge for himself what is right or wrong.
The "most dangerous superstition" referred to in the title is the idea of "authority," which includes all belief in "government." No, that's not a "spoiler;" this is something Rose lays out on Page 2 of the book. He doesn't deny that all the legislators, police, bureaucrats and soldiers exist -- they clearly do. But the thing that makes "government" something more than a gang of thugs is the respect -- even reverence -- in which it is held by the people it rules. "Government" is commonly believed to have a RIGHT to rule us, and we commonly believe ourselves to have a DUTY to obey their commands (which are called "laws.") Rose unleashes a ferocious array of arguments proving that neither that RIGHT nor that DUTY can logically -- or morally -- exist. If that sounds silly to you, YOU need to read the book.
This is a remarkable book, remarkable for its honesty, its logic, its passion and the profound importance of its conclusions. There is also much to admire in Rose's clear, concise writing. He discusses important ideas in clear, everyday language, without bogging down in philosophical technicalities or becoming boring. It is an exciting book, filled with purely brilliant insight -- but don't be surprised if you find yourself fighting the relentless logic of his conclusions so that you can't read more than a few pages at a time.
It is also a very important book, important the way Atlas Shrugged -- or Tom Paine's Common Sense -- are important. The most dangerous superstition IS dangerous because it enslaves our minds, which leads to the enslavement of our whole lives. This is a book to set us free.
April 21, 2014
This is a fantastic book. I was a "l"ibertarian before I read this book. This book pushed me over the edge to full blown anarchist.
July 10, 2013
One of those paradigm shifting books. If you are tired of being a slave of the State, the path begins with freeing your mind, and freeing your mind could begin with this book. The case is almost overstated, but since I am already starting to see through the mythology that keeps us all oppressed, it may be my subjective impression. Recommended for all who are brave enough to be responsible for their own lives instead of running to mommy or daddy government to settle all their problems.
April 2, 2011
I received this book as a gift from an online acquaintance with the agreement that I would read it and give it to someone after finishing it.
Rose is an anarchist, and a passionate one. I found his arguments engaging, polemic, and in the end unconvincing. His entire premise is that "authority" does not exist, and he is right. If everyone stopped believing in authority, it would vanish. However, I think that some paradigms, even though not 100% true, are useful. We wander through life with half truths all the time and many times these half truths benefit us.
Larken uses the words violence, tyranny and other such terms with wild abandon and I think they are a misrepresentation of reality.
Even though I do not agree with Larken end vision, I feel like he forced me to confront some very important ideas, but I was left feeling unsatisfied.
I need to complete the second part of this agreement and give it to someone. So - if someone is willing to read this book and then give it to another person, let me know, and I will give/ship it to you.
Rose is an anarchist, and a passionate one. I found his arguments engaging, polemic, and in the end unconvincing. His entire premise is that "authority" does not exist, and he is right. If everyone stopped believing in authority, it would vanish. However, I think that some paradigms, even though not 100% true, are useful. We wander through life with half truths all the time and many times these half truths benefit us.
Larken uses the words violence, tyranny and other such terms with wild abandon and I think they are a misrepresentation of reality.
Even though I do not agree with Larken end vision, I feel like he forced me to confront some very important ideas, but I was left feeling unsatisfied.
I need to complete the second part of this agreement and give it to someone. So - if someone is willing to read this book and then give it to another person, let me know, and I will give/ship it to you.
September 29, 2018
I'm astonished at the amount of logical fallacies on a book that appeals so much to logic. This book is a compendium of them, especially extreme false dichotomies. I should've figure out in the first lines, when the author instructs the readers to stop reading and give the book to someone else if their beliefs and superstitions matter more than truth and justice. The implication of subtle here but never again throughout the book.
The basic premisse of the book is simple. Anarchy works, anything that is not anarchy is absolute authoritarianism and doesn't work. On top of that, whoever doesn't agree, is either indoctrinated or delusional. That would be true if the vast majority of the claims weren't so easy to counter argue. The analogy of the tainted glasses that Larken Rose accuses most people of wearing doesn't seem to apply to him. His case and the book, suffer greatly from lack of self-criticism.
I will give Rose some credit for raising many issues with the political system, democracy and particularly politicians. However all the credit is lost when the solutions that he presents for education and law enforcement are based on voluntary service and voluntary payment. An example of the expected results are voluntary policemen (that could have a paid career if there were citizens willing to voluntarily pay for the service) that would act only on their own conscience and morals. I wonder if Rose ever considered a scenario where a group of religious fundamentalists would voluntarily become policemen.
The basic premisse of the book is simple. Anarchy works, anything that is not anarchy is absolute authoritarianism and doesn't work. On top of that, whoever doesn't agree, is either indoctrinated or delusional. That would be true if the vast majority of the claims weren't so easy to counter argue. The analogy of the tainted glasses that Larken Rose accuses most people of wearing doesn't seem to apply to him. His case and the book, suffer greatly from lack of self-criticism.
I will give Rose some credit for raising many issues with the political system, democracy and particularly politicians. However all the credit is lost when the solutions that he presents for education and law enforcement are based on voluntary service and voluntary payment. An example of the expected results are voluntary policemen (that could have a paid career if there were citizens willing to voluntarily pay for the service) that would act only on their own conscience and morals. I wonder if Rose ever considered a scenario where a group of religious fundamentalists would voluntarily become policemen.
August 9, 2015
This may be the best non-fiction book I have ever read. I will just give you one excerpt from it:
“In truth, if anything is a sin, it is blind obedience to "authority." Acting as an enforcer for "government" amounts to spiritual suicide—actually worse than physical suicide, because every authoritarian "enforcer" not only shuts off the free will and ability to judge which make him human (thus "killing" his own humanity) but also leaves his body intact, to be used by tyrants as a tool for oppression. To be a "law enforcer" is to willingly change one's self from a person into a robot—a robot which is then given to some of the most evil people in the world, to be used to dominate and subjugate the human race. Wearing the uniform of a soldier or the badge of a "law enforcer" is not a reason for pride; it should be cause for great shame at having forsaken one’s own humanity in favor of becoming a pawn of oppressors.”
“I have rights that you don't. You must do as I say, submit to my commands, and treat me as your superior, because I am not a mere human being. I have risen above that. Through my unquestioning obedience and loyalty to my masters, I have become a piece of the superhuman entity called 'government' and act on its ‘authority.’ As a result, the rules of human morality do not apply to me, and my actions should not be judged by the usual standards of human behavior.”
“Mortals cannot alter morality any more than they can alter the laws of mathematics. Their understanding of something may change, but they cannot, by decree, change the nature of the universe. Nor would anyone sane attempt to. Yet that is what every new "law" passed by politicians pretends to be: a change in what constitutes moral behavior.”
“Many have been able to recognize and oppose specific acts of tyranny by specific regimes, but very few have recognized that the underlying problem is not who sits on the throne; the problem is that there is a throne to sit on.”
“In truth, if anything is a sin, it is blind obedience to "authority." Acting as an enforcer for "government" amounts to spiritual suicide—actually worse than physical suicide, because every authoritarian "enforcer" not only shuts off the free will and ability to judge which make him human (thus "killing" his own humanity) but also leaves his body intact, to be used by tyrants as a tool for oppression. To be a "law enforcer" is to willingly change one's self from a person into a robot—a robot which is then given to some of the most evil people in the world, to be used to dominate and subjugate the human race. Wearing the uniform of a soldier or the badge of a "law enforcer" is not a reason for pride; it should be cause for great shame at having forsaken one’s own humanity in favor of becoming a pawn of oppressors.”
“I have rights that you don't. You must do as I say, submit to my commands, and treat me as your superior, because I am not a mere human being. I have risen above that. Through my unquestioning obedience and loyalty to my masters, I have become a piece of the superhuman entity called 'government' and act on its ‘authority.’ As a result, the rules of human morality do not apply to me, and my actions should not be judged by the usual standards of human behavior.”
“Mortals cannot alter morality any more than they can alter the laws of mathematics. Their understanding of something may change, but they cannot, by decree, change the nature of the universe. Nor would anyone sane attempt to. Yet that is what every new "law" passed by politicians pretends to be: a change in what constitutes moral behavior.”
“Many have been able to recognize and oppose specific acts of tyranny by specific regimes, but very few have recognized that the underlying problem is not who sits on the throne; the problem is that there is a throne to sit on.”
March 4, 2013
If nothing else, this book will make you think. It is a must-read for every government employee and law enforcer! Are you doing what you know to be morally right, or are you blindly obeying what you perceive as authority, even though it is telling you to do what you know to be morally wrong? That is the question which each of us must answer for ourselves. But, do we realize we need to *ask* that question?!
October 15, 2012
A deeply philosophical book on the nature of consent and the false belief in authority. Be it founded on religion, politics or government the belief in authority has throughout history led to otherwise good people doing evil deeds. Larken Rose explores the deep rooted belief in authority and offers alternatives for a more humane and enlightened world.
April 22, 2014
One of the most important books I've ever read.
February 3, 2014
In "The Most Dangerous Superstition," by Larken Rose, the author claims that "[t]he distinguishing feature of 'government' is that it is thought to have the moral *right* to give and enforce commands. [...] What distinguishes a street gang from 'government' is how they are perceived by the people they control." That communicates the basic insight of the book. Rose denies the existence of authority, defined as this moral right to command, and a corresponding obligation of ordinary persons to obey.
Government is not the ultimate problem, the problem is how we fool ourselves: "the primary danger posed by the myth of 'authority' is to be found [...] in the minds of those *being controlled*." "[T]he underlying problem is never the particular people in power. The underlying problem resides in the minds of the people being oppressed." "If the people continue to adhere to the myth of 'authority,' after any upheaval of a particular regime they will simply create a new set of masters to replace the old set." This myth resists efforts to debunk it: "Even the most heinous examples of man's inhumanity to man, committed in the name of 'authority,' rarely persuade anyone to question the idea of 'authority' per se. Instead, it leads them only to oppose a *particular* set of tyrants."
The author wants to expose the psychological process that people use to rationalize the status quo and avoid dealing with the truth underneath the myth. "[O]nly a small percentage of the coercion of 'government' is implemented by the enforcers of 'authority'; most of it is implemented by its *victims*." Victims "lack the *mental* ability to resist" tyranny. We live in a crowdsourced panopticon, a prison where the inmates are the guards. "Large scale oppression [...] depends a lot more on mind control than it does on body control. Those who crave dominion gain much more power by convincing their victims that it is *wrong* to disobey their commands than by convincing their victims that it is merely *dangerous* (but moral) to disobey." Unfortunately, the book does not reveal any deep psychological principle that can help us avoid such error. Rose cites psychological research such as the Milgram experiment, but gives no hint how to overcome the tendencies he discusses. (Michael Huemer's book "The Problem of Authority" deals with similar topics as Rose's book, but takes a less strident tone, as is appropriate for an academic philosopher.)
He attacks the idea of the "consent of the governed": "If there is mutual consent, it is not 'government'; if there is governing, there is no consent. [...] Whoever has the right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place." This "logically implies that everything in the 'country' is the property of the politicians." "If the organization called 'government' stopped using any threats or violence, except to defend against aggressors, it would cease to be 'government'." What if governments took the consent of the governed seriously, allowing them some reasonable way to opt out?
Rose emphasizes the distinction between morality and obedience: "Morality and obedience are often direct opposites." That is, in some cases one must disobey authorities in order to act morally.
Rose denies the possibility of a gradual transition from tyranny to freedom: "If 'authority' outranks conscience, then the common folk are all the property of the ruling class, in which case freedom cannot and should not exist. If, on the other hand, conscience outranks 'authority,' then each person owns himself, and each must always follow his own judgement of right and wrong, no matter what any self-proclaimed 'authority' or 'law' may command. There cannot be a gradual shift between the two, nor can there be a compromise." From the standpoint of a particular person this is true, but society is composed of many persons, not all of whom will experience their epiphany at the same time. And even if we did, we would then face a Hayekian challenge of creating new voluntary institutions to replace the old coercive ones. Some people need more than a book full of interesting ideas before they will be willing to gamble on something new. They need to see examples of people actually cooperating and succeeding without coecion. Supersaturated solution crystallizes, or seed sprouts and blooms?
Rose disregards politics: "Voting is an act of aggression" because elections "are about arguing over how everyone should be *forced* to behave" and what they must support financially. "There is a mind-bogglingly huge disconnect between what the average person views as 'civilized behavior' on an individual basis, and what he views as legitimate and civilized when it comes to the actions of 'authority'" and they "demand that 'government' do things they would never dream of doing on their own." "[I]f the goal is individual freedom, 'political action' is not only worthless, it is hugely counterproductive, because the main thing it accomplishes is to legitimize the ruling class's power." Anyone who plays the game of politics will "aggravate the problem by inadvertently legitimizing the system of domination and subjugation which wears the label of 'government'."
But if voting can strengthen statism, shouldn't there be some opposite activity that weakens it? Let's call it Countervoting. What would it look like? It would reinforce a person's conscience, while weakening her desire to obey authority mindlessly. It would provide a way to hack the panopticon. Rose did not mention that idea in the book, Countervoting is my concept, but perhaps he would say reading his book is a form of Countervoting. But I want something just like voting, a ritual that naturally tends to move your mind toward autonomy, in spite of whatever thoughts you may consciously think while participating, just as I can think "government stinks" while casting my ballot.
Rose's prescription to cure society's illness is vague and negative:
"The ultimate solution is nagative and passive: Stop advocating aggression against your neighbors. Stop engaging in rituals that condone the initiation of violence and reinforce the notion that some people have the right to rule. Stop thinking and speaking and acting in ways that reinforce the myth that normal people should be, and must be, beholden to some master, and should obey such a master rather than follow their own consciences." "[W]hen even a significant minority of people outgrow the superstition, and change their behavior accordingly, the world will drastically change." Freedom seekers can "achieve it without the need for any election or revolution."
What sort of behavior change does he mean? He gives us vague hints: "If people truly understood [...] they would simply stop surrendering their property to the political parasites." But the "idea of disobeying 'authority' [...] is more disturbing to them than the idea of being a slave." Rose seems to recommend non-compliance and disobedience. He has demonstrated this himself, and spent time in prison for failure to pay income tax. This has little appeal as a strategy.
And noncompliance can come only after enlightenment. How do we build an alternative paradigm in people's minds? The language and behavior of the dominant paradigm work to reinforce it. How can we resist this indoctrination? Perhaps Rose thinks everyone should read his book and adopt Rose's new paradigm. But many will not read this book, and for reasons he discusses in the book, those that read the book who are not already convinced are not very likely to change their minds. (Jonathan Haidt's book, "The Righteous Mind," gives some theories about why this is true, where it comes from, and what Rose might want to try to do about it.)
We need more than disobedience, and less. We already have plenty of disobedience, in the form of black market participation, drug use and sales, illegal gambling, prostitution, and other victimless crimes. What we need is a way to get all those "criminals" to understand Rose's idea. But they won't read his book, they have political biases, and they are unlikely to act on an untested idea. We need a way for them to participate directly, to create temporary autonomous zones, to protect each other from violence, and then turn the TAZs into permanent autonomous zones. We need to sell them safety and freedom, show them examples of people living peaceful, cooperative lives without coercion. We need to crowdsource the free zone. Rose's book gives us little help with that, it is all theory, no practice.
Authority has already lost, according to Rose, because it is an illusion. "If the alleged 'authority' upon which the entire concept of 'government' relies is merely an illusion [...], then saying that society cannot exist without 'government' is exactly as reasonable as saying that Christmas cannot occur without Santa Claus. Society *already* exists without 'government', and has from the beginning." This sounds absurd, so what does he mean? He means that we have lied to ourselves about how society works, what society is. He means that the organization we call government is actually something else, a polite Mafia with good public relations. He means that when enough of us are willing to give it a try, we may find that cooperation beats coercion.
August 17, 2015
This book could literally change your life. Larken Rose argues that ‘authority’ is a figment of our imagination. More than that, is it a superstition (the most dangerous superstition) which has allowed governments to form and undertake all manner of atrocities. Consider for a moment that all people were actually equal, literally. No person, be it a police officer or other government authority, had the right to kidnap you (detain), rob you (tax) or otherwise forcibly coercive you into anything you felt was morally wrong. In fact, Rose presents many examples where just because an authority (the government) decrees something (laws) is illegal that it is therefore wrong or immoral, e.g. prohibition of alcohol. But when the opinion of ‘government’ shifts and a law is repealed it is no longer wrong or immoral. Alternatively, he very effectively uses slavery as an example where it was actually legal (and therefore moral) to ‘own’ slaves and illegal (and therefore immoral) to help slaves at that time. He goes further and argues that those in ‘authority’ have no more rights than you as a human being. If you do not have the right to rob, restrain, imprison or murder someone, neither does anyone else, even if some ‘authority’ says they do. It sounds simple, right? But it is a real shift in thinking when you apply it to our everyday life. This book is not perfect. It is at times repetitive and the free on-line copy I read was riddled with typos, but that is not the point. This book is designed to challenge you, to make you angry and to make you question everything you have been taught as a ‘good, tax-paying, law abiding citizen’. You might not agree with Rose’s premise, but if you read this with an open-mind you can’t help but view the world in a different manner after reading it. After all, if you don’t trust your neighbours to act in a decent, moral manner when given actual free will (anarchy), why would you trust a group of people (government) to act in a decent, moral manner when they have the ‘authority’ to do whatever they choose?
May 26, 2012
The book has some excellent ideas about the expression of polities where one's belief system can form a mode of confirmation bias that creates a shared illusion forming questioning certain beliefs about authority as taboo. This is a creative and positive aspect of the book. The writing also conflates leadership with authority at times and does not differentiate between the two modes of behavior. This create a duplicitous presentation from the author where they attempt to lead the reader while at the same attempting to avert being seen as authoritative.
January 7, 2021
Eye Opener
This book forces you to take a look at everyday life in a different perspective, it points out things that many people don't think about on an every day basis. With that being said, I recommend this book only for open minded readers.
This book forces you to take a look at everyday life in a different perspective, it points out things that many people don't think about on an every day basis. With that being said, I recommend this book only for open minded readers.
August 31, 2023
The belief in "authority," which includes all belief in "government," is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in "authority" is the arch-enemy of humanity.
This book was simply amazing. At 46 years old and having spent twenty years in the United States Army, I was throughly indoctrinated/brainwashed in government and order-following. But I always felt in my heart and soul my entire life that something was off with this system. As I got older even before becoming a truth seeker, I always felt that consolidated wealth and power in the form of a federal centralized corporate cartel masquerading as government was the cause of all suffering on this planet. This book confirmed all thoughts and feelings I ever had. As one review stated, I have always been a conscious libertarian but this book definitely put me over the edge to full blown anarchist. I highly recommend this book. This book is not only eye opening but will definitely trigger cognitive dissonance.
This book was simply amazing. At 46 years old and having spent twenty years in the United States Army, I was throughly indoctrinated/brainwashed in government and order-following. But I always felt in my heart and soul my entire life that something was off with this system. As I got older even before becoming a truth seeker, I always felt that consolidated wealth and power in the form of a federal centralized corporate cartel masquerading as government was the cause of all suffering on this planet. This book confirmed all thoughts and feelings I ever had. As one review stated, I have always been a conscious libertarian but this book definitely put me over the edge to full blown anarchist. I highly recommend this book. This book is not only eye opening but will definitely trigger cognitive dissonance.
April 9, 2019
The Most Dangerous Superstition is one of the most important books ever written. I would recommend this book to everyone, even though many may not be ready to let go of their lifelong indoctrination of the most dangerous superstition just yet; it’s an enlightening read. I have been following Larken Rose’s work for the past several years, but it wasn’t until recently I purchase a copy of his book. Those who suffer from cognitive dissonance criticize Larken because he speaks plainly, in simple language and uses simple analogies and real-world examples that even a child can understand. It is impossible to deny this technique is effective in breaking down the mythos surrounding the belief in authority.
The main reason people object to a lot of Larken’s positions, like this book, is because most of the population has little to no concept of ‘Natural Law.’ To learn more about this topic, I highly suggest looking into the work of Mark Passio. I have been following Mark’s work far longer than I have Rose’s, so when I read this book, the entire thing was blatant common sense. When you familiarize yourself with the inherent truth of Natural Law you can ultimately only draw one conclusion, that the dogmatic belief in authority is both immoral and illogical.
Under Natural Law there can be no masters or slaves. We own and are responsible for ourselves. This is where the word anarchy is derived, which literally means, “No Rulers”, NOT “No Rules” like many statist would have you believe to rationalize their own illogical beliefs.
Larken Rose does a great job dispelling the myth of one of the biggest and most dangerous religions in the world, Statism, the belief in government and/or authority. Once you see past the illusion of this religious cult, like all other dogmatic religious cults, the matrix beings to crumble. You begin to see that the problems facing this world have been caused by these false beliefs and we are all responsible for the state of this planet as we continue to allow these false beliefs to spread like a plague.
Until we can find the courage within ourselves to change, we will never rid ourselves of this superstition, not only government, but ANY religion or dogmatic belief system that isn’t in 100 percent accordance with Natural Law. If we are honest with ourselves and want to see positive change in the world, we need to first change ourselves. Start that positive change today by buying a copy of The Most Dangerous Superstition and once you are done, give a copy to everyone you know and share what you have learned.
The main reason people object to a lot of Larken’s positions, like this book, is because most of the population has little to no concept of ‘Natural Law.’ To learn more about this topic, I highly suggest looking into the work of Mark Passio. I have been following Mark’s work far longer than I have Rose’s, so when I read this book, the entire thing was blatant common sense. When you familiarize yourself with the inherent truth of Natural Law you can ultimately only draw one conclusion, that the dogmatic belief in authority is both immoral and illogical.
Under Natural Law there can be no masters or slaves. We own and are responsible for ourselves. This is where the word anarchy is derived, which literally means, “No Rulers”, NOT “No Rules” like many statist would have you believe to rationalize their own illogical beliefs.
Larken Rose does a great job dispelling the myth of one of the biggest and most dangerous religions in the world, Statism, the belief in government and/or authority. Once you see past the illusion of this religious cult, like all other dogmatic religious cults, the matrix beings to crumble. You begin to see that the problems facing this world have been caused by these false beliefs and we are all responsible for the state of this planet as we continue to allow these false beliefs to spread like a plague.
Until we can find the courage within ourselves to change, we will never rid ourselves of this superstition, not only government, but ANY religion or dogmatic belief system that isn’t in 100 percent accordance with Natural Law. If we are honest with ourselves and want to see positive change in the world, we need to first change ourselves. Start that positive change today by buying a copy of The Most Dangerous Superstition and once you are done, give a copy to everyone you know and share what you have learned.
December 16, 2020
Over the course of my life, I've come to intuitively recognize how broken governments around the world are. But I've never quite been able to put my finger on the cause, much less a solution. After reading this book, both the cause and solution are glaringly obvious to me.
Larken Rose brilliantly and patiently walks you through perceiving the authority programming, to see the truth that you instinctively know; that the myth of authority/government has been used to manipulate and control humans for eons. We have been so repeatedly told mistruths about the need for authority, that I surprisingly found the repetition in this book to have been helpful in untangling the layer after layer of accumulated mistruths.
There are so many things that I had previously assumed that governments/authoritarianism were necessary in order to accomplish, a necessary evil. That I was rather startled while being guided to contemplate a world without governments, to see it would not only be possible but even more effective! And indeed, much of the growth/success we attribute to modern society/governments are NOT actually the result of governments, but rather in spite of governments.
I still smile at his playful reference to another myth adults have outgrown, "To say that society cannot exist without “government” is as reasonable as saying that Christmas cannot occur without Santa Claus. Society already exists without “government,” and has from the beginning."
I found this book extremely helpful and well written. He approaches the topic from so many different angles and gives so many examples that I left the book with much more clarity and a sense of hope for the future of our world. There IS a solution for moving beyond the violence and oppression inherent in the authoritarian systems that are currently in place! Thank you for illuminating that solution Larken! Brilliantly done.
Larken Rose brilliantly and patiently walks you through perceiving the authority programming, to see the truth that you instinctively know; that the myth of authority/government has been used to manipulate and control humans for eons. We have been so repeatedly told mistruths about the need for authority, that I surprisingly found the repetition in this book to have been helpful in untangling the layer after layer of accumulated mistruths.
There are so many things that I had previously assumed that governments/authoritarianism were necessary in order to accomplish, a necessary evil. That I was rather startled while being guided to contemplate a world without governments, to see it would not only be possible but even more effective! And indeed, much of the growth/success we attribute to modern society/governments are NOT actually the result of governments, but rather in spite of governments.
I still smile at his playful reference to another myth adults have outgrown, "To say that society cannot exist without “government” is as reasonable as saying that Christmas cannot occur without Santa Claus. Society already exists without “government,” and has from the beginning."
I found this book extremely helpful and well written. He approaches the topic from so many different angles and gives so many examples that I left the book with much more clarity and a sense of hope for the future of our world. There IS a solution for moving beyond the violence and oppression inherent in the authoritarian systems that are currently in place! Thank you for illuminating that solution Larken! Brilliantly done.
July 28, 2015
Insightful, but poorly argued.
Much better is anarcho-capitalist Prof. Michael Huemer's book The Problem of Political Authority, which argues for the same thesis that governments lack political authority,but in a much more rigorous and persuasive way.
Huemer's book is my favorite book defending libertarian anarchism.
More detailed review on Amazon and my blog:
https://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpres...
Much better is anarcho-capitalist Prof. Michael Huemer's book The Problem of Political Authority, which argues for the same thesis that governments lack political authority,but in a much more rigorous and persuasive way.
Huemer's book is my favorite book defending libertarian anarchism.
More detailed review on Amazon and my blog:
https://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpres...
April 4, 2014
It seems that author of this book and I are living in a different worlds. I have never experienced that kind of oppression or abuse from "authority" that he talks about. I never felt that my taxes are going to waste or many other things that author talks about. Maybe things are different in America, but down here in liberal Europe things are not so grim therefore many of his points are moot.
August 9, 2018
If you're not new to the ideas of libertarianism and anarchy, it will be kind of boring, but even then it provides a fresh perspective of how authority and government are essentially just myths that everyone is falling for and if everyone would realize it, those institutions would cease to exist. A good read for newbies.
February 11, 2015
While I found the premise of the book engaging at the start, I felt it never really went anywhere. Very disappointing.
May 21, 2016
One of the best books you may ever read.
July 2, 2017
The message humanity most needs to hear.
February 18, 2020
.... and now I’m an anarchist!
May 15, 2021
This is a very provocative book, even for people already familiar with the classical liberal / libertarian tradition. The most dangerous superstition, according to this book, is the belief in "authority". By "authority", the author means the idea that some people have the right to rule and correspondingly, other people have a duty to obey. The author distinguishes his use of the word authority with other ways in which it is used in the English language. For example, an employer does not have authority in this sense.
The only institutions that qualify according to the author are governments and religious deities.
So why is this idea "dangerous"? The reason is that obedience to authority and personal morality are opposed to each other. The belief in authority means that right and wrong are not determined the situation but by who is the agent. For example, stealing is wrong to most people. However, when the government does steal (taxes, inflation e.t.c), the same people find that perfectly okay.
The author claims that most if not all of the greatest atrocities in human history would not have been possible without the belief in authority. Hitler, Mao and stalin could not have murdered millions if not for the "law enforcers" who imagined them to have the right to rule.
The book makes the case for anarchism and/or voluntarism. The author says that the world would be a much better place without government for these reasons.
This is a polemic work, it is written in a loose way. It is very repetitive. I think this could be condensed into an essay without losing anything.
Overall, this is thought provoking. I would recommend it for anyone interested in ethics or political theory.
The only institutions that qualify according to the author are governments and religious deities.
So why is this idea "dangerous"? The reason is that obedience to authority and personal morality are opposed to each other. The belief in authority means that right and wrong are not determined the situation but by who is the agent. For example, stealing is wrong to most people. However, when the government does steal (taxes, inflation e.t.c), the same people find that perfectly okay.
The author claims that most if not all of the greatest atrocities in human history would not have been possible without the belief in authority. Hitler, Mao and stalin could not have murdered millions if not for the "law enforcers" who imagined them to have the right to rule.
The book makes the case for anarchism and/or voluntarism. The author says that the world would be a much better place without government for these reasons.
This is a polemic work, it is written in a loose way. It is very repetitive. I think this could be condensed into an essay without losing anything.
Overall, this is thought provoking. I would recommend it for anyone interested in ethics or political theory.
May 18, 2022
A very simple book to overstand with the concept of I&I being the foremost logic spread by Larken Rose and anarchism. This book is hard-hitting and you must be willing to open your mind to the concept of the “political farce” that we call government. Everyone will not agree to the premise but it’s worth it. 5 stars.
March 3, 2021
Well-done rundown of the dangers of the superstitious belief in "authority" and how we can set ourselves free from the perpetual tyranny of the state. Definitely recommend. Get ready for prior assumptions to be challenged.
January 29, 2021
I can fully grasp that the concept that "government" is a purely human construct that has created a psychological prison while exacting very real, physical violence and oppression in parsing out "authority" to a ruling class of humans revered as having some superhuman abilities. Nor is it at all difficult to understand the history of violence and oppression from all forms of "government" - even the "good" ones. However, it is difficult for me to make the next leap to what Mr. Rose refers to as "anarchy" and I think the vast majority of us must struggle with this, having been raised to obey, fear, respect authority in all forms.
Just as the legitimacy of "authority" and "government" is a mass hallucinated entity, the notion that we would all awaken one day to reject it is also an hallucination. Even if I, myself, decide that I no longer recognize any government, law, law enforcement, geographical border, I am still bound to a society that does.
Overall, this book is a wonderful first foray into prodding one into thinking about what "could be" versus what is. It also makes an enlightening case of how Libertarians and Constitutionalists are still statists, albeit smaller ones with lower case "s". Would recommend to anyone who is able to think freely enough to wrestle with idea that authority and government is absurd in actuality and anathematic to basic human freedom.
Just as the legitimacy of "authority" and "government" is a mass hallucinated entity, the notion that we would all awaken one day to reject it is also an hallucination. Even if I, myself, decide that I no longer recognize any government, law, law enforcement, geographical border, I am still bound to a society that does.
Overall, this book is a wonderful first foray into prodding one into thinking about what "could be" versus what is. It also makes an enlightening case of how Libertarians and Constitutionalists are still statists, albeit smaller ones with lower case "s". Would recommend to anyone who is able to think freely enough to wrestle with idea that authority and government is absurd in actuality and anathematic to basic human freedom.
March 29, 2016
Тая книга е толкова прехвалена, че направо не знам какво очаквах, предвид твърдото ми убеждение, че няма добър хайп. Убеждението ми се затвърди.
Накратко, авторът прави великото откритие, че най-лошото нещо и изворът на всяко зло е властта (authority) от човек върху човека и ако я премахнем всичко ще процъфти. С детска наивност той задава въпроси и открива отговори, които в либертарианските среди са отдавна предъвквани и стига до отговори, които мога да нарека само анархистки. Последната глава е особено затрогваща, защото описва какво ще стане, след като всяка власт бъде премахната: когато "хората разберат..." и "осъзнаят"... Да, само това се иска, всички хора да почнат да мислят като него и ще настане земен рай.
Излишно е да казвам, че фактите на човешката природа остават извън полезрението му и затова пропуска да обясни как точно хората, еволюирали примати, чийто основни инстинкти са формирани за живот в малки, йерархично съставени групи, ще успеят да зачеркнат една от основните през всичките милиони години на тяхната еволюция функции на обществото и мозъка им.
Накратко, авторът прави великото откритие, че най-лошото нещо и изворът на всяко зло е властта (authority) от човек върху човека и ако я премахнем всичко ще процъфти. С детска наивност той задава въпроси и открива отговори, които в либертарианските среди са отдавна предъвквани и стига до отговори, които мога да нарека само анархистки. Последната глава е особено затрогваща, защото описва какво ще стане, след като всяка власт бъде премахната: когато "хората разберат..." и "осъзнаят"... Да, само това се иска, всички хора да почнат да мислят като него и ще настане земен рай.
Излишно е да казвам, че фактите на човешката природа остават извън полезрението му и затова пропуска да обясни как точно хората, еволюирали примати, чийто основни инстинкти са формирани за живот в малки, йерархично съставени групи, ще успеят да зачеркнат една от основните през всичките милиони години на тяхната еволюция функции на обществото и мозъка им.
May 10, 2018
This book may just save the world, I'm not exaggerating in the slightest.
It is the single most logically airtight, irrefutable, total annihilation of all historical and modern forms of 'government' as entities of individuals that are morally legitimate. There is no moral reason, or excuse, or legitimacy behind government, the author argues, but he argues it in such a way that I have never heard of a single person FINISHING the book who still had any rebuttal to any of the authors words at the ending page. And I have heard of/witnessed the accounts of several hundred by now.
I have found that those who have an emotional response and get angry at the book, typically did not read it; that is, they couldn't finish or get passed the first pages without their own personal cognitive dissonance kicking in and/or causing them to irrationally dismiss it before reading it with a mature and open inquisitive mind.
Most important book of our time.
It is the single most logically airtight, irrefutable, total annihilation of all historical and modern forms of 'government' as entities of individuals that are morally legitimate. There is no moral reason, or excuse, or legitimacy behind government, the author argues, but he argues it in such a way that I have never heard of a single person FINISHING the book who still had any rebuttal to any of the authors words at the ending page. And I have heard of/witnessed the accounts of several hundred by now.
I have found that those who have an emotional response and get angry at the book, typically did not read it; that is, they couldn't finish or get passed the first pages without their own personal cognitive dissonance kicking in and/or causing them to irrationally dismiss it before reading it with a mature and open inquisitive mind.
Most important book of our time.
July 4, 2021
Larken Rose gives great arguments against government. His positions are tough to dispute. The problem lies in his solution. Yes, men can be greedy and selfish. Yes, the "power" governments have over the citizenry is akin to chaining ourselves and handing someone else the keys. Yes, government is evil. But, the alternative is chaos and anarchy. For that reason, government is a necessary evil.
There are good takeaways from this book and we would be wise to use that information to hold our elected officials accountable to us but not to do away with the whole system.
There are good takeaways from this book and we would be wise to use that information to hold our elected officials accountable to us but not to do away with the whole system.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews