Why Do We Listen to the Government?
The Illusion of Social Contracts and the Traps That Bind Us
Introduction
In my book, I delve deeply into the concept of government, a cornerstone of modern society. Drawing inspiration from the works of thinkers like
, I explore how the idea of governance and its so-called “social contract” is not as natural or beneficial as it appears.La Boétie2’s insights reveal the government’s psychological grip on society, one that relies on fear and ignorance to sustain itself. This theme is central to understanding how constructs like science, technology, and governance shape our modern reality.
Recently, the
released an excellent video on government, building on many of the concepts I discuss in my book. In this article, I’ll address three key aspects of that video and pose critical questions:Why do we listen the government?
Have we truly consented to be governed?
And is there a better system we can imagine?
With a new regime poised to take control under Donald Trump, it’s crucial to critically evaluate the legitimacy of government before endorsing or aligning with any proposed ideologies.
The Illusion of Consent
The first issue we must confront is the idea of consent. How did our current governmental systems come to be?
Over the last 200 years, we’ve developed a narrative that positions government as an inevitable and essential institution. Yet, we’re not far removed from historical empires like Rome, which collapsed only 600 years ago.
Our modern systems are relatively new, and their roots are worth scrutinizing.
La Boétie and others argue that no explicit consent has been given for the governance we live under. Unlike a job, where an individual consents to a contractual agreement, governance operates without a signed document or clear agreement from the people it governs.
This lack of explicit consent raises questions about the legitimacy of our systems. For instance, democracy, often hailed as the pinnacle of governance was historically introduced by ruling classes as a way to maintain control while offering the illusion of choice.
This leads to a fundamental question: If there’s no signed contract, can we truly say we’ve consented to government authority?
The Myth of the Social Contract
The concept of the social contract suggests that by being born into a society, we implicitly agree to its rules and structures to maintain order and cohesion.
From the Academy of Ideas1, we read:
The most famous attempt to legitimize the power of the state is the social contract theory. This theory is based on the idea that there is a contractual relationship between the government and those governed which obligates the government to provide certain services, such as law and order, and the citizens to pay taxes and obey the law.
Proponents argue that government is the best way to achieve collective progress. However, as the Academy of Ideas points out, this notion is flawed. If no explicit consent was ever given, then the social contract is more myth than reality.
This theory, however, is not grounded in reality. None of us have ever been presented with a contract requesting our consent, nor has any one signed one. It was not explicit contractual relations that gave rise to most modern states, but war and conquest.
True consent requires awareness and agreement between all parties. If the idea of a social contract is imposed without our understanding or approval, it cannot be considered legitimate. This issue became particularly evident during the pandemic when debates about consent and authority highlighted how much we accept without question.
For instance, lockdowns, mandates, and other government actions were imposed under the guise of societal protection, yet few were given meaningful opportunities to voice dissent. These examples confirm the illusory nature of consent in our governance.
The idea of “consent through presence,” often summarized by the phrase, “If you don’t want to obey the government, you can leave,” assumes that rejecting the supposed contract requires abandoning one’s home, job, and community. This demand is absurd and does not align with the principles of legitimate agreements.
If rejecting governance means giving up everything you own, then such a system cannot truly be based on consent — but rather an illusion of freedom carefully crafted to conceal enslavement.
Fear and Resistance to Change
One reason we cling to the idea of government is fear. Humans are wired to seek stability and avoid uncertainty. This is one of our cognitive heuristics—a mental shortcut that simplifies decisions but often leads to accepting flawed systems.
This 1-min video shows how monkeys exhibit, “its how we’ve always done things.”
Check out my article on heuristics to learn how to think critically.
This fear of change perpetuates the belief that governance is necessary, even with its flaws. But this mindset prevents us from questioning systems that justify wars, inequality, and systemic control.
Breaking free from this mental trap requires training our minds to overcome these fears. In several pieces, which I will link at the bottom of this piece, I discuss how societal control relies on long-term conditioning to maintain compliance. Both education systems and mass media play crucial roles in reinforcing obedience, creating passive roles that discourage questioning foundational assumptions like the social contract.
Psychological phenomena such as ‘status quo bias,’ which predisposes us to accept existing systems as legitimate, and Stockholm Syndrome, where citizens develop emotional attachments to coercive governments, further stifle meaningful critique.
Add to this the intentional ‘strategy of tension’—a deliberate tactic of creating uncertainty and fear to maintain control—and it becomes clear how our heuristics prime us to follow predetermined paths. Examples include media narratives that amplify fear of instability, making reliance on authority seem like the only path forward.
Fortunately, change is possible. By simply questioning these systems and their authenticity, we can begin to imagine alternatives to centralized governance.
What Comes Next?
The pushback against questioning the government centers on a simple question: “What’s the alternative?”
While there is no one-size-fits-all answer, rejecting outdated systems opens the door to innovation. Centralized governance, our current reality, consolidates power in ways that diminish individual and local autonomy. One possible solution could be decentralized systems.
Historically, decentralized governance structures have existed, emphasizing local control, mutual aid, and collaboration without the overarching dominance of a central authority.
For instance, the Iroquois Confederacy’s model (12th century - 18th century) of decentralized councils not only balanced autonomy but preserved cultural identity—a lesson in how governance can coexist with diversity.
Similarly, Switzerland’s current federal structure has allowed regions to maintain their unique languages and traditions, showcasing how decentralization fosters unity without uniformity.
These systems remind us that alternatives to centralized governance are not utopian dreams but viable frameworks rooted in both history and modern practice.
However, the viability of such systems depends on public awareness.
From schooling to daily news, our current systems propagate narratives that frame centralized authority as inevitable. Without public awareness of their history and potential, decentralized systems — or any other alternatives — struggle to gain traction.
The first step, if we are to change anything, is to increase our distrust in centralized institutions. Blind obedience to authority has led to some of the greatest atrocities in human history. Millions have died in statist wars, and millions more have suffered under oppressive regimes.
Questioning authority is not about fostering chaos but seeking moral clarity and justice.
Change won’t happen overnight, but education and awareness are critical first steps. By understanding our history, critically evaluating our present, and taking action in our own spheres of influence, we can lay the groundwork for a more equitable future.
As stated in our article on imagination, true solutions come from recognizing and rejecting the illusions of authority.
Closing Thoughts
We’re not powerless to challenge the systems that govern us. By educating ourselves and, most important our children, we can plant the seeds for change that might take decades to grow.
History reminds us that even the most entrenched systems are not permanent. As we stand only 600 years removed from Rome, our actions today can shape the world for the next generation.
This is where the real work begins. By challenging the status quo, we work toward a more just and equitable world.
As always, thank you for the time and attention in reading these works. Let’s be great.
Ashe,
Franklin O’Kanu
P.S. — Releasing Part II of The Biggest Three False Flags, 9/11 tomorrow! Here’s Part I - The Moon Landing.
If this resonated with you, consider becoming a paid subscriber to Unorthodoxy. Your support helps bring deeper spiritual and practical insights to our growing community. Unlock exclusive insights and join a growing community of truth-seekers. Become a paid subscriber today and take the first step toward reclaiming your worldview.
Curious about how fake narratives have shaped our understanding of reality? My book, An Unorthodox Truth, offers a comprehensive exploration of these systems and, more importantly, how we can reclaim our worldview.
Feeling generous? If this work resonates with you, consider leaving a tip—every contribution helps support my mission to shed light on hidden truths.
References and Related Works
https://academyofideas.com/2024/12/should-we-obey-the-government/
👏👏👏
Teach our children that our rights are not gifts from the government!
It makes no difference who you vote for, the Jews pull the strings behind the scene.The political leaders just carry out the instructions of the their Jewish Overlords. Read the book:"The Conquest of The World by The Jews." No country that is controlled by Jewish International Finance is allowed to print their own debt free currency, this is why Western Democracies have to borrow billions and trillions from the private Central Banks that are bankrupting Western countries.