Freedom Force International

WHAT COMES FIRST: AUTHORITY OR POWER?
© 2007 - 2009 by G. Edward Griffin. Updated 2009 July 11

A long-time member recently wrote:

Dear Ed,
I visited your website today and watched your 20 minute movie and loved it. … However, I was struck by one part of the presentation that I believe needs to be made more clear to listeners. That was your discussion of power. … You made no real distinction between power in the hands of tyrants and power in the hands of reformers. Power should be talked about as the realization of who has authority to exercise a particular power. One who exercises the power that belongs to another is a usurper and one who exercises power that belongs to no one is a tyrant.

The critical thing that all citizens need to know is that power is in the mind of the people. … People and citizens must learn that they already have power, because many government officials and representatives do not have authority to exercise power. This notion produces power in the mind and in the argument. … Actual possession of power is 90% perception and 10% advertising.

Power is obtained to overthrow tyrants by proving that the tyrant simply does not have the authority to exercise that power. This is what has destroyed tyrants in the past and that is what will destroy them in the future.

This was my reply:

I believe you will find a more comprehensive presentation of this issue in our official video presentation entitled An Idea Whose Time Has Come, www.realityzone.com/ideawhosehour.html. I would add, however, that authority is derived from power, not power from authority. The authority of the Constitution came into being solely because the writers of that document had earned authority through a successful test of arms on the battlefield. Had they lost the War of Independence, they would have had no authority to write a Constitution or anything else.

Unfortunately, Mao Zedong was right when he said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. He could just as well have said political authority. A man may declare that he has authority to do such and such derived from law or from the Constitution or even from God. However, in the presence of an enemy or a criminal with a gun to his head, he has no power to exercise his proclaimed authority. That is why we make no bones about what we mean when we speak of power. We are talking, not only about the power of knowledge or the power of reason or the power of spirituality or the power of law; we also are talking about the power of coercion that is inherent in the state; specifically the courts, the police, and the military. Without that, there is no temporal authority.

BY WHAT AUTHORITY CAN WE CLAIM WE ARE RIGHT AND THOSE PROMOTING THE NEW WORLD ORDER ARE WRONG?
This question came to us from a prospective member who is struggling with the question: If religion must not be the authority for the state, then what should be? He writes:

The Declaration of Independence states that in respect to the opinions of mankind, we must give a reason that impels us to separation. I understand our movement is focused on freedom, but where is the justification for it? I agree whole-heartedly that the Constitution makes no mention of God, and in my opinion, rightly so. We do not want to offer freedom and then force someone into a paradigm of beliefs.

However, if our freedom movement is to fight for freedom, on what justification are we doing it, or in other words, why would the NWO be wrong in clearing the earth of 90% of the population? For the sake of argument, let's suppose there is no God, the atheist was right all along, and evolution is true. On what authority can we justify that our desire for freedom is right and the NWO desire for our enslavement is wrong?

The 10 Commandments for the NWO posted on the Georgia Guidestones hold evolutionary and atheistic values that clearly show that the world's population needs a 90-95% decrease. What makes that wrong? I know it's wrong, because I can say there is a Creator who grants rights, and the NWO has no authority over the Creator to take them away.

I'm asking the movement to please explain to me how we justify that the NWO would not be saving the planet and resources by getting rid of all the 'inferior species'? Without using God as our answer, on what authority do we justify that our desire for freedom is right and the NWO desire for our enslavement is wrong? If this movement cannot justify that its basis for freedom is right over the NWO, why are we doing it? We need to state a reason that impels us to sepeaation.

Thank you,
Christopher J.

THIS WAS MY REPLY:

Hello Christopher.
Regrettably, I must be very brief. But the essence of my thought on this is very simple. It really makes no difference what authority we choose. We can write proclamations all day long and claim God’s word or logic or philosophy as our authority, but they mean nothing unless we are able to back our proclamations with physical force. Those with the winning armies choose whatever authority they wish.

It wasn’t philosophy or the recognition of a Creator expressed in The Declaration of Independence that carried the day. It was the Continental Army. Those who win on the battlefield always determine the laws and can use any authority or justification they wish. Therefore, those of us who believe in freedom cite the philosophy expressed in The Creed of Freedom, and that’s quite sufficient, provided we can rely on the power of the state to enforce it. But remember, that power is greatly restricted by the Creed itself. It is limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property. However, without that limited power, we have no enforceable rights. That’s why the motto of Freedom Force is: “Those without power cannot defend freedom.”




Printed on 02 October 14 at 09:28

URL of this page:
http://freedomforceinternational.org/printerfriendly.cfm?pffile=authority_vs_power_content.cfm



http://www.freedomforceinternational.org
Contact us at info@freedomforceinternational.org