Should We Obey the Government?

All signs point to NO.

Dec 02, 2025

I am not sure how I found the video below. It was probably a recommendation from one of you wonderful people. All I know is that I had the link and decided to listen while I was stringing up lights in my gazebo. I had never heard of Academy of Ideas. I assumed the video would be good, but probably not amazing.

It turned out to be much better than I expected. This is due in significant measure to the fact that it is based on the work of Michael Huemer.

I am going to put the video at the very end, but feel free to skip down if you have your own lights to string in your own gazebos and want something to listen to.

In between, I will post two sections.

An unedited ChatGPT summary, in case you want to get the gist of the whole thing quickly. (The video itself is worth a listen, though.)
A breakout discussion of one aspect: the video’s (and thus Huemer’s) rejection of tacit/implied consent to the “social contract.”

I will also use ChatGPT for #2, but I will make my own edits and improvements. I do not generally use AI to do my writing for me. In this case, I have a busy day of Christmas shopping ahead, so I am going to cheat a little! I will always tell you if I use AI in any writing. In this case, it has proved helpful. (It also draws on Huemer’s work beyond that which is presented in the video, which adds depth.)

I have already written in great detail about consent, and about the disastrous fallacy of the implied social contract, but repetition is the mother of pedagogy. New subscribers are also coming aboard every day, and they need to hear this stuff too.

Thus, the beatings will continue until morale improves, or until we finally come to understand that consent is the fundamental unit of moral concern in human relations, and that we absolutely did not consent to be governed.

Remember—for consent to be valid, it must be voluntary, explicit, transparent, informed, and revocable.

Here are a few of those earlier posts, ICYMI:

The Nonaggression Principle Is Not Enough

The Day I Forced My Wife to Marry Me

Can We Find a Prime Directive? (Let’s try…)

Parts 4 and 5 in this series are coming soon, and they are doozies!

Summary

The video begins with a quote attributed to St. Augustine, via a pirate’s reply to Alexander the Great: The king asked, “‘What is your idea, in infesting the sea? And the pirate answered, ‘The same as yours, in infesting the earth! But because I do it with a tiny craft, I’m called a pirate: because you have a mighty navy, you’re called an emperor.’”
This sets up the central question: why is a government morally justified in doing things (taxation, regulating freedoms, waging war, spying, etc.) that would be considered immoral or illegal if done by any ordinary individual or group?
The video draws on Michael Huemer’s book The Problem of Political Authority, arguing that “political authority” is not morally justified—that governments do not automatically have a license to bypass the moral rules that govern individuals.
The familiar justification for the state—the Social Contract Theory—is criticized: since no one signed or explicitly consented to a contract with the state, social contract theory lacks real grounding.
Some try to replace explicit consent with “implicit consent,” but the video outlines four kinds of implicit consent (passive consent, accepting benefits, participation, presence) and argues none meet the standards for a valid contract because there is no realistic way to opt out.
A different justification—that the majority’s will legitimizes government—is also rejected, on ethical grounds: numerical majority does not morally obligate individuals to obey coercive power merely because it has majority support.
Another common justification is consequentialist: that government—despite lacking moral authority—is justified because the benefits outweigh the costs. The video argues this is flawed because it presupposes that governments are net beneficial, which history often contradicts (e.g., oppressive regimes, wars, mass harm).
Why, then, do people nevertheless tend to obey? The video points to psychological/cognitive biases that create what Huemer calls a “moral illusion of authority.”
Among those biases:
- Status-quo bias: We have an instinctive preference for existing social arrangements, making it hard to question government authority—especially when we’re born into a society that treats that authority as normal.
- Psychological identification (akin to Stockholm Syndrome): Over time, citizens may subconsciously identify with the state, defending it and rationalizing its coercive actions.
- Cognitive dissonance reduction: When citizens benefit from government services or have complied with laws (e.g., paying taxes), yet also realize the state sometimes commits injustices, they may cling to belief in the government’s legitimacy to avoid psychological discomfort.
The video doesn’t argue that all laws should be disobeyed unconditionally. It acknowledges there are moral rules (e.g., don’t steal or kill) that should be respected regardless of state legitimacy.
But it calls for skepticism toward political authority—especially disobeying or resisting commands that are immoral or result in injustice. The history of large-scale death and oppression associated with statism, conformity, and blind obedience is used as a warning.
In conclusion: even if a government offers some benefits, that on its own does not morally justify granting it special authority. The common philosophical attempts to justify obedience all fail under scrutiny—and human psychology often blinds us to that failure, creating a “moral illusion of authority.”

The Four Arguments for Implied Consent
(and why they all fail)

1. Passive Consent
”You didn’t object; therefore, you agreed.”

Claim:
By not actively resisting government authority, we implicitly consent to it.

Why this fails:

Consent cannot be inferred from inaction.
Silence or non-resistance is not enough to establish a morally binding agreement.
(Not resisting a thief does not mean you consent to being robbed.)
The threat of force destroys voluntariness
If the state says, “Do as we command or we will punish you,” compliance is not consent; it is obedience under the threat of violence.
The absence of a realistic opt-out creates a Hobson’s Choice
If refusing to consent triggers force (e.g., arrest, fines, loss of property), then “non-objection” is not consent; it is surrender based on self-preservation and the absence of a viable alternative.

Passive consent is thus indistinguishable from coerced submission.

2. Accepting Benefits
“You use the roads; therefore, you consent.”

Claim:
Using government services—roads, police, public utilities, courts, emergency services—means you have tacitly agreed to the social contract.

Why this fails:

Receiving unavoidable benefits is not consent.
If someone forces benefits on you (e.g., cleaning your car’s windshield without asking and then demanding payment), the benefit does not create an obligation.
Government often monopolizes essential services, so avoiding them is impossible:
- You cannot avoid the monetary system.
- You cannot avoid using roads or postal addresses.
- You cannot avoid a court system that forcibly imposes jurisdiction.
People may use government services only because they are already coerced into paying for them.
If taxes fund the services, you are essentially forced to “accept” what you’ve already been compelled to subsidize.
True consent requires the option to refuse the benefits without penalty.
The government never offers such an option.

3. Participation (e.g., Voting)
”Look—he voted! That’s the ‘consent of the governed.’”

Claim:
By voting or otherwise participating in political society, you implicitly accept government authority.

Why this fails:

Participation is not offered on voluntary terms.
Voting is framed as the only available tool for influencing the system. This makes it analogous to choosing which mugger takes your wallet. (See the Lysander Spooner quote at the end of Democracy Is Hell and We Are Sisyphus.)
Not voting does not exempt you from government authority.
Whether you vote or boycott the political process, you remain subject to the same laws and penalties.
Participation occurs under duress.
The state controls:
- land
- resources
- the legal system
- monetary systems
- use of force
Thus, participation is a survival strategy, not a voluntary endorsement.

4. Mere Presence
“By living here, you agree.”

Claim:
Remaining in a state’s territory constitutes consent to its authority and laws.

Why this fails:

“Love it or leave it” is a Hobson’s Choice
“Submit to this thing to which you did not consent, or leave behind your home, your family, your property, your roots, your community ties…”
No terra nullius exists
There is no inhabitable land on earth that is not controlled by a government imposing a variant of the same nonconsensual arrangement.
Remaining in a place does not imply consent when exit is costly, dangerous, or prohibitive.
Most people:
- cannot sell their home and move abroad,
- cannot obtain foreign visas,
- cannot afford relocation,
- cannot speak foreign languages,
- cannot leave a job, etc
(Just because leaving is impractical doesn’t mean staying is consent.)
States monopolize the geographic space people are born into.
You are born into a state’s claimed territory; you did not choose to enter.
The idea assumes the state is the rightful owner of all land within its borders.
This is a key point: The state claims to own territory by asserting authority, then uses that asserted authority to justify its ownership—creating a circular argument.
This argument resembles protection racket logic.
“By being on my turf, you accept my rules.”
But this logic, applied to private actors, is recognized as coercion rather than consent. (Presence in a territory controlled by a coercive power is not evidence of agreement.)